Bancroft v. Mitchell Offshore Marine LLC
Date Decided: May 19th, 2010
Originally Filed in: Louisiana (State)
Decided by: Louisiana 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals (State)
Court: Third Circuit Court of Appeals of Louisiana
Judge: Judge Ezell
Citation: 2010 WL 1978219 (La.App. 3rd Cir.)
Background:
This is an appeal by both parites following a trail in the Thirty-Eight Judicial District Court, Cemeraon Parish in which the Seaman-Plaintiff was awarded $65,000 in general damages, $8,250 for past wage loss, and no damages for the re-aggravation of a prior back injury.
Plaintiff, Mr. Bancroft, was employed as a seaman on the M/V CAPTAIN NICK; which was owned by Mitchell Offshore Marine and captained by Jeff Isel.
Bancroft was thrown violently into a navigation table, breaking his ribs and puncturing a long as a result of a collision between the M/V CAPTAIN NICK and the PAN AM CARIBE, another ship on January 5, 2007.
Ultimately the trial court found that Bancroft's employer, Mitchell, was negligent and issued a verdict for the plaintiff for general damages and past wage loss.
The trial court, however, did not find that Bancroft provided sufficient evidence to support that the accident re-aggravated a prior back injury.
Bancroft appeals on four grounds: (1) that the trial court erred in applying an incorrect burden of proof as to the cause of his back injury; (2) that the trial court erred in finding his spine injuries and subsequent spinal fusion were not caused by the accident; (3) that the trial court erred in awarding unreasonably low damages for his injuries; and, (4) that the trial court erred in failing to award punitive damages against Mitchell for its alleged refusal to pay maintenance and cure.
In response to Bancroft's appeal, Mitchell contends the trial courts award of damages was too high.
This is an appeal by both parites following a trail in the Thirty-Eight Judicial District Court, Cemeraon Parish in which the Seaman-Plaintiff was awarded $65,000 in general damages, $8,250 for past wage loss, and no damages for the re-aggravation of a prior back injury.
Plaintiff, Mr. Bancroft, was employed as a seaman on the M/V CAPTAIN NICK; which was owned by Mitchell Offshore Marine and captained by Jeff Isel.
Bancroft was thrown violently into a navigation table, breaking his ribs and puncturing a long as a result of a collision between the M/V CAPTAIN NICK and the PAN AM CARIBE, another ship on January 5, 2007.
Ultimately the trial court found that Bancroft's employer, Mitchell, was negligent and issued a verdict for the plaintiff for general damages and past wage loss.
The trial court, however, did not find that Bancroft provided sufficient evidence to support that the accident re-aggravated a prior back injury.
Bancroft appeals on four grounds: (1) that the trial court erred in applying an incorrect burden of proof as to the cause of his back injury; (2) that the trial court erred in finding his spine injuries and subsequent spinal fusion were not caused by the accident; (3) that the trial court erred in awarding unreasonably low damages for his injuries; and, (4) that the trial court erred in failing to award punitive damages against Mitchell for its alleged refusal to pay maintenance and cure.
In response to Bancroft's appeal, Mitchell contends the trial courts award of damages was too high.
Issues:
(1) Did the trial court err in applying an incorrect burden of proof as to the cause of Bancroft's back injury; (2) did the trial court err in finding Bancroft's spine injuries and subsequent spinal fusion were not caused by the accident; (3) did the trial court err in awarding unreasonably low damages for Bancroft's injuries; and, (4) did the trial court err in failing to award punitive damages against Mitchell for its alleged refusal to pay maintenance and cure.
(1) Did the trial court err in applying an incorrect burden of proof as to the cause of Bancroft's back injury; (2) did the trial court err in finding Bancroft's spine injuries and subsequent spinal fusion were not caused by the accident; (3) did the trial court err in awarding unreasonably low damages for Bancroft's injuries; and, (4) did the trial court err in failing to award punitive damages against Mitchell for its alleged refusal to pay maintenance and cure.
Held:
As a preliminary matter to determining the first issue, the Appellate court first reviewed the applicable "featherweight" burden of proof as to causation as outlined in the Supreme Court's decision in Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d 331, 335 (5 Cir.1997).
Mitchell, relying on Monroe v. Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co., Inc., 06-933(M.D.La.2009), --- F.Supp.2d ----, contended that Bancroft, or any seaman asserting a negligence claim for that matter, bears the burden of proving a featherweight of causation by a preponderance of the evidence
The Appellate Court rejected Mitchell's stance, thereby rejecting the 5th Circuits departure from Gautreaux, and explained that the correct burden of proof to be applied is that Bancroft need only prove any injury he may have sustained was causally linked to Mitchel's negligence by slight evidence.
Despite rejecting Mitchell's stance, the Appellate court found that the trial court applied the correct burden of proof, despite its use of the phrase "preponderance of the evidence." The Appellate court concluded from the Trial court's opinion that it applied the slight burden of proof despite the use of inappropriate language.
After the Appellate court held that the trial court applied the appropriate standard, it accordingly examined the record before it under the manifest error standard of review instead of performing a de novo review. See Milstead v. Diamond M Offshore, Inc., 95-2446 (La.7/2/96), 676 So.2d 89.
In addressing Bancroft's second contention, the Appellate court explained that a factual finding can only be set aside if the appellate court finds it to be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Smith v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections, 93-1305 (La.2/28/94), 633 So.2d 129;
To support a manifest error finding an appellate court must: (1) review the record before it in its entirety; (2) find that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding; and (3) further determine that the record establishes that the fact finder is clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. The Appellate court's review of the Trial Courts lengthy examination of Bancroft's pre-existing chronic back problems and the lack of disclosure by Bancroft to Mitchell about his condition provided it with no basis to find manifest error with the Trial Courts determination that the back injury was caused by the collision.
The Appellate Court, did however, find clear error on the Trial court's behalf for failing to find that some back pain was caused by the collision. This finding, affects only the reasonableness of the general damages award issue not the causation issue.
In reviewing a trial courts damage awards, an appellate court can adjust the award only if the fact finder abused its discretion in making the awards. Guillory v. Lee, 09-75 (La.6/26/09), 16 So.3d 1104. Meaning that a trial courts damages awards are entitled to great weight and as such reversed rarely. Therefore, if a reasonable factual basis for the trial court's award exists it must be upheld.
Despite the great deference given to trial courts awards the Appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding damages only for its ribs and chest only.
The Appellate court found that the medical records showed that Bancroft suffered back pain as a result of the accident despite the fact that the underlying cause was not exacerbated by the accident.
As such, the appellate court awarded an additional $25,000 to Bancroft for the back pain he suffered; raising his total recover from $65,000 to $90,000.
As a result of the Appellate court's finding in regards to the second issue it no longer had to address whether Mitchell acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to pay maintenance and cure for that condition.
As a preliminary matter to determining the first issue, the Appellate court first reviewed the applicable "featherweight" burden of proof as to causation as outlined in the Supreme Court's decision in Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d 331, 335 (5 Cir.1997).
Mitchell, relying on Monroe v. Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co., Inc., 06-933(M.D.La.2009), --- F.Supp.2d ----, contended that Bancroft, or any seaman asserting a negligence claim for that matter, bears the burden of proving a featherweight of causation by a preponderance of the evidence
The Appellate Court rejected Mitchell's stance, thereby rejecting the 5th Circuits departure from Gautreaux, and explained that the correct burden of proof to be applied is that Bancroft need only prove any injury he may have sustained was causally linked to Mitchel's negligence by slight evidence.
Despite rejecting Mitchell's stance, the Appellate court found that the trial court applied the correct burden of proof, despite its use of the phrase "preponderance of the evidence." The Appellate court concluded from the Trial court's opinion that it applied the slight burden of proof despite the use of inappropriate language.
After the Appellate court held that the trial court applied the appropriate standard, it accordingly examined the record before it under the manifest error standard of review instead of performing a de novo review. See Milstead v. Diamond M Offshore, Inc., 95-2446 (La.7/2/96), 676 So.2d 89.
In addressing Bancroft's second contention, the Appellate court explained that a factual finding can only be set aside if the appellate court finds it to be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Smith v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections, 93-1305 (La.2/28/94), 633 So.2d 129;
To support a manifest error finding an appellate court must: (1) review the record before it in its entirety; (2) find that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding; and (3) further determine that the record establishes that the fact finder is clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. The Appellate court's review of the Trial Courts lengthy examination of Bancroft's pre-existing chronic back problems and the lack of disclosure by Bancroft to Mitchell about his condition provided it with no basis to find manifest error with the Trial Courts determination that the back injury was caused by the collision.
The Appellate Court, did however, find clear error on the Trial court's behalf for failing to find that some back pain was caused by the collision. This finding, affects only the reasonableness of the general damages award issue not the causation issue.
In reviewing a trial courts damage awards, an appellate court can adjust the award only if the fact finder abused its discretion in making the awards. Guillory v. Lee, 09-75 (La.6/26/09), 16 So.3d 1104. Meaning that a trial courts damages awards are entitled to great weight and as such reversed rarely. Therefore, if a reasonable factual basis for the trial court's award exists it must be upheld.
Despite the great deference given to trial courts awards the Appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding damages only for its ribs and chest only.
The Appellate court found that the medical records showed that Bancroft suffered back pain as a result of the accident despite the fact that the underlying cause was not exacerbated by the accident.
As such, the appellate court awarded an additional $25,000 to Bancroft for the back pain he suffered; raising his total recover from $65,000 to $90,000.
As a result of the Appellate court's finding in regards to the second issue it no longer had to address whether Mitchell acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to pay maintenance and cure for that condition.
Comments:
In determining whether an abuse of discretion has been shown with respect to an award of damages, the relevant evidence must be viewed in the light which offers the most support to the trial court's judgment, and if a reasonable factual basis exists for the trial court's damages awards, appellate court cannot reverse the awards. Proving an abuse of discretion is rarely successful because of the great deference given to a trial courts discretion in awarding damages.
Steve Gordon
In determining whether an abuse of discretion has been shown with respect to an award of damages, the relevant evidence must be viewed in the light which offers the most support to the trial court's judgment, and if a reasonable factual basis exists for the trial court's damages awards, appellate court cannot reverse the awards. Proving an abuse of discretion is rarely successful because of the great deference given to a trial courts discretion in awarding damages.
Steve Gordon
<< PREVNEXT >>
