TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Noble Drilling Corporation v. Eunick P

NOBLE DRILLING CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Eunick P. SAUNIER, Jr., Appellee; Eunick P. SAUNIER, Jr., Appellant, v. NOBLE DRILLING CORPORATION, Appellee

Noble Drilling Corp. v. Eunick P, 335 F.2d 62 (5th Cir. 1964)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 4, 1964
Docket
No. 21317
Judges
Tuttle, Wisdom, McRae
Citations
335 F.2d 62

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Eunick Saunier sued Noble Drilling Corporation to recover damages for injuries resulting from a fall which occurred while he was employed as a roughneck on an off-shore submersible drilling rig. The case was tried to a jury on questions of negligence under the Jones Act ( 46 U.S.C.A. § 688 ) and unseaworthiness. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and an award of $83,670.71.

1

We affirm.

The appellant contends that the trial judge erred in its general charge, erred in granting certain special instructions offered by the plaintiff, and erred in refusing certain requested instructions of the defendant. We hold that the instructions, taken as a whole, are not erroneous. The court’s definitions of (1) “seaman”, (2) “vessels in navigation”, and-(3) “navigable waters” conform to the-state of the law. See (1) Senko v. LaCrosse Dredging Co., 1957, 352 U.S. 370 , 77 S.Ct. 415 , 1 L.Ed.2d 404 ; Offshore Co. v. Robison, 5 Cir. 1959, 266 F.2d 769 ; (2) Gianfala v. Texas Co., 1955, 350 U.S. 879 , 76 S.Ct. 141 , 100 L.Ed. 775 ; (3) Norton v. Warner Co., 1943, 321 U.S. 565 , 64 S.Ct. 747 , 88 L.Ed. 430 ; Gahagan Construction Corporation v. Armao., 1 Cir. 1948, 165 F.2d 301 .

We have considered the appellant’s other objections, and see no errors in the-proceedings below to justify interference with the jury determination.

We affirm the district court’s denial of' the plaintiff’s claim for maintenance and' cure.

1

. The jury found plaintiffs damages to be $100,000. The award represents a 10 per cent reduction based upon plaintiffs negligence and a credit of $6,329.29 for medical bill which defendant had already paid.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1966: 219662026peak 1966 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Creel v. the Drill Tender Jack Cleverly264 F. Supp. 98 (W.D. La. 1966)
  2. Johnson v. Noble Drilling Company264 F. Supp. 104 (W.D. La. 1966)

Most recent

  1. Johnson v. Noble Drilling Company264 F. Supp. 104 (W.D. La. 1966)
  2. Creel v. the Drill Tender Jack Cleverly264 F. Supp. 98 (W.D. La. 1966)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Senko v. LaCrosse Dredging Corp., 352 U.S. 370 (1957) 154
Gianfala v. Tex. Co., 350 U.S. 879 (1955) 67
Norton v. Warner Co., 321 U.S. 565 (1944) 165
Offshore Co. v. Robison, 266 F.2d 769 (5th Cir. 1959) 317
Gahagan Const. Corp. v. Armao, 165 F.2d 301 (1st Cir. 1948) 54

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list