Poirier v. Diamond Offshore USA, et al

*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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
September 13, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-30792
Summary Calendar
Henry Poirier
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
Diamond Offshore (USA), Inc.,
Diamond Offshore Management Co.
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Following a two-day bench trial, the district court entered
judgment against Diamond Offshore Management Company on plaintiff-
appellee Henry Poirier’s Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness
claims. Diamond Offshore appeals, challenging the district court’s
finding of an unseaworthy vessel and the calculation of damages.
We affirm.
Diamond Offshore first challenges the district court’s ruling
that “the crew supervisor . . . created an unseaworthy condition by
allowing the crew to carry out a procedure in which the Plaintiff

-- 1 of 2 --

2
remained hooked to the manrider and safety lines while on deck
during continuous high winds.” This ruling, it argues, is contrary
to the Supreme Court’s decision in Usner, which held that an
“isolated, personal negligent act of [a fellow worker” cannot
provide the basis for a claim of transitory unseaworthiness. Usner
v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp., 400 U.S. 494, 500 (1971).
We decline to correct the district court’s error, if any,
because such an error would not affect the defendant’s substantial
rights. See FED.R.CIV.P. 61. The plaintiff’s recovery is
independently supported by his winning claim of negligence under
the Jones Act, a judgment from which Diamond Offshore does not
appeal.
Diamond Offshore also challenges as clearly erroneous the
district court’s damage awards for past and future pain and
suffering ($250,000), past lost wages ($50,000), and future
economic loss ($180,000). We are convinced, after a review of the
record, that these amounts are not greater than the maximum amount
the trier of fact could properly have awarded. Sosa v. M/V Lago
Izabal, 736 F.2d 1028, 1035 (1984).

-- 2 of 2 --