Case: 12-30830 Document: 00512289818 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 27, 2013
No. 12-30830
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
SHAUN CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant,
v.
CHET MORRISON CONTRACTORS, L.L.C.,
Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 6:11–CV–1358
Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Shaun Campbell (“Campbell”) brought this admiralty suit against Chet
Morrison Contractors, LLC (“Morrison”), alleging that Morrison’s negligence and
the unseaworthiness of Morrison’s vessel proximately caused him injury while
he was working on a fixed platform in the Gulf of Mexico. After a two-day bench
trial, the district court found in favor of Campbell on both theories. Both parties
appeal from the district court’s judgment.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
Case: 12-30830 Document: 00512289818 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2013
No. 12-30830
Morrison challenges the district court’s evidentiary rulings on three points.
“We review a district court’s exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion.”
R.R. Mgmt. Co., L.L.C. v. CFS La. Midstream Co., 428 F.3d 214, 217 (5th Cir.
2005) (citing Nat’l Hispanic Circus, Inc. v. Rex Trucking, Inc., 414 F.3d 546, 551
(5th Cir. 2005)). Upon review of the record, the district court acted within its
discretion in excluding the evidence at issue.
Morrison also raises five issues challenging the district court’s findings
with respect to negligence, the vessel’s seaworthiness, and the damages award.
We review these district court findings for clear error. See Jauch v. Nautical
Servs., Inc., 470 F.3d 207, 213 (5th Cir. 2006); Boudreaux v. United States, 280
F.3d 461, 468 (5th Cir. 2002). If the district court’s findings are plausible in light
of the record as a whole, then we will not reverse its judgment, even though we
might have weighed the evidence differently sitting as the trier of fact. Bertucci
Contracting Corp. v. M/V ANTWERPEN, 465 F.3d 254, 258 (5th Cir. 2006)
(citing Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573–74 (1985)). A finding is
clearly erroneous when we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed.” Id. at 258–59 (quoting Walker v. Braus, 995 F.2d
77, 80 (5th Cir. 1993)). Having reviewed the briefs, the applicable law, and
pertinent portions of the record, we conclude that there is no clear and reversible
error in the district court’s findings.
Finally, Campbell asserts one issue on cross-appeal, challenging the
district court’s finding that calculating his future medical costs for pain
medication was too speculative. Campbell, however, has not shown that the
district court’s finding was clearly erroneous. See Jauch, 470 F.3d at 213.
AFFIRMED.
2