Larry Davis v. Estis Well Service, L.l.c.

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, this 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
June 2, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-30430
LARRY DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ESTIS WELL SERVICE, L.L.C.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
6:03-CV-1337
Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Estis Well Service appeals the judgment of the district court,
which held Estis was liable for injuries to its employee, Larry
Davis. Estis contends that the district court erred in several of
its findings. As explained below, all of Estis’s arguments fail.
The district court, after conducting a bench trial, found
Estis liable under 33 U.S.C. § 905(b) (2000). In doing so, it
found that Estis caused Davis’s injuries by negligently operating

-- 1 of 2 --

1Estis as barge owner, not as employer of longshoremen, had
control over the position of the barge. As such, Estis’s actions
are examined under the negligence standards for vessels. Levene,
943 F.2d at 531.
2The only damages issues that Estis adequately briefed are
purely factual.
its vessel. Estis argues that this was error under Scindia Steam
Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156 (1981), which
outlines the duties vessel owners owe to longshoremen. One such
duty is to protect longshoremen from hazards in the vessel’s
control. Levene v. Pintail Enters., 943 F.2d 528, 533 n.6 (5th
Cir. 1991). Contrary to its assertion, Estis breached this duty by
failing to safely position its vessel during the crane operation
that caused Davis’s injuries. The position of the vessel was in
Estis’s control, and the position contributed to the accident.1
Therefore, the district court did not err in finding that Estis
acted negligently.
Estis also challenges the district court’s finding that Davis
was injured in a work-related accident and its findings concerning
damages. We review factual findings for clear error,2 Theriot v.
United States, 245 F.3d 388, 394 (5th Cir. 1998), and find none
here. This is underscored by the fact that we give trial courts
greater deference when, as here, they base their findings on
credibility determinations. Schlesinger v. Herzog, 2 F.3d 135, 139
(5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --