The First Court of Appeals of Texas this week issued an opinion (http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=2bb3591e-accb-4299-bce1-7766ff273147&coa=coa01&DT=Opinion&MediaID=240869e8-71b1-4845-903f-339f405dca80) affirming a jury verdict for $8.5 million for Willie “David” Williams, a mechanic injured onboard Diamond Offshore’s drilling rig OCEAN LEXINGTON working offshore Egypt in 2008. Mr. Williams’s lawsuit included claims under the Jones Act, doctrine of unseaworthiness, and general maritime law. David Williams sustained disabling injuries to his spine when forced to make rushed emergency repairs to the rig’s drilling “elevators”. Diamond Offshore complained that the jury’s award, which included $3.4 million for future pain and suffering associated with David’s injuries and their ongoing impacts for the rest of his life, was excessive, although this amount is still less than the salary for a single year for Diamond Offshore’s CEO (http://insiders.morningstar.com/trading/executive-compensation.action?t=DO).

Doyle LLP Trial Lawyers has filed suit against Noble Drilling (US) LLC and Noble Offshore Corp. (“Noble”) under the Jones Act and general maritime law alleging negligence on the part of Noble, unseaworthiness as to its vessel the M/V Tom Madden, wrongful termination, and wrongful denial of maintenance and cure .

Doyle LLP’s client was employed as a Floorhand by Noble Drilling and Noble Offshore.  Due to under-manning (an insufficient number of crewmembers) and unsafe work practices, the client suffered a severe leg injury while ascending and descending multiple flights of stairs.  To add insult and further injury, Noble terminated Doyle LLP’s client following his work injury and refused to pay maintenance and cure, as required by maritime law.

The Jones Act is a maritime law that provides protection to seamen who are injured while working on a vessel.  Seamen are entitled to a safe place to work, a properly manned vessel, and safe equipment.  When a Jones Act employer is negligent in providing for the safety of its crew or provides an unseaworthy vessel, it may be held liable for damages such as lost earnings, medical bills, physical impairment, pain, mental anguish, and other damages.

In addition, maritime law requires an employer, like Noble, to pay maintenance (costs of living) and cure (medical expenses) following a work injury, regardless of whether an employer is negligent or the vessel is unseaworthy.  The failure to provide maintenance and cure allows a Jones Act seaman to seek damages for the delay in payment of maintenance and cure, attorneys’ fees, and punitive damages.  Finally, a Jones Act employer is not allowed to terminate an employee in retaliation for reporting a work injury.

Doyle LLP is proud to represent this Jones Act seaman in his fight against Noble and intends to take every step to seek full compensation for the injuries suffered.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you or someone you know has been injured by the negligence while working offshore, whether on a drilling rig, barge, tug, or other vessel.

Doyle LLP Trial Lawyers has filed suit against E Squared Marine Services LLC, Citgo Petroleum Corporation, and Gulf Sulphur Services Ltd., LLP under the Jones Act and general maritime law and for the arbitrary and capricious denial of maintenance and cure

The suit was brought to collect damages caused by the negligence of the client’s Jones Act employer, E Squared Marine, and the negligence and unseaworthiness of the barge Duval 3, and its crew, directly contributing to serious injuries on or about November 15, 2014 in the inter-coastal water of Louisiana.  On or about November 15, 2014, Doyle LLP’s client was at the dock of Citgo’s Lake Charles Refinery loading sulfur into the Duval 3, a barge owned by Defendant Gulf Sulphur Services. Plaintiff, employed as a crewmember for E Squared Marine, was working on a transfer between the refinery, owned and operated by Citgo, and the barge, owned by Gulf Sulphur Services. Without warning, the barge exploded. The blast, which sent flames high into the air, occurred within approximately 30 feet of the client. He went into shock and noise induced hearing loss. He quickly called Citgo personnel over the radio, commanding a shutdown be performed. A second blast occurred, along with a third emission of heat and gas.

Doyle LLP’s Client suffered hearing loss, head trauma, dizziness, tinnitus, an inability to maintain balance, and severe headaches. Defendants failed their duty to the Plaintiff by not providing a vessel and its appurtenances suitable for its intended use as the Fire Department’s inspection revealed the barge’s tank had not been cleaned as frequently as required, causing crystal formation within the tank and increasing the risk of a fire ignition. Further, the United States Coast Guard determined the cause of the explosion could also be attributed to the sensor/thermostat aboard the barge providing false readings, causing the tank to heat the sulfur to a degree highly dangerous and increasing the risk of such an explosion. The grounding cable was also improperly grounded before the explosions occurred. The dangerous and defective condition of the barge and dock violated applicable laws and regulations of the United States of America, and accordingly the Defendants are liable for negligence, negligence per se, and in strict liability.

The suit alleges that E Squared did not properly supervise or train the crew, failed to properly man the vessel, failed to provide adequate equipment, and/or failed to provide a safe place to work to Mr. Pollard.  And Citgo and Gulf Sulphur Services were also responsible for the condition of the barge Duval 3, including faulty cleaning, faulty thermostat/sensor, and the grounding failure.

Doyle LLP is proud to represent this Jones Act seaman who was injured due to negligence and an unseaworthy vessel. Contact us today if you or someone you know an injured seaman or offshore worker who would like to have their rights under the Jones Act, general maritime law, and doctrine of unseaworthiness evaluated.

Doyle LLP Trial Lawyers has filed suit against Weatherford International, LLC (“Weatherford”) for negligent operations leading to a serious shoulder injury suffered by its client while working on an oil rig overseas.

Due to the negligence of Weatherford, Doyle LLP’s Client suffered injuries on or about May 14, 2015, at an oil rig located in Iraq.  On the date of the incident in question, Plaintiff was working for Baker Hughes.  While walking toward the rig stairs, he tripped on a blow down line that was improperly and unsafely placed and partially buried near a set of stairs.  As a result, he tripped and fell suffering a serious shoulder/arm and nerve injuries. Weatherford, by and through its employees and officers, was negligent in creating the dangerous conditions that proximately resulted in his injuries, which include injuries to his shoulder/arm and nerves, and in failing to provide adequate equipment, a properly positioned blow down line, an adequate crew, and negligent hiring, training, supervision, and in other respects.

Doyle LLP is proud to represent this worker who was injured due to the negligence of an oil rig operator while working overseas. Contact us today if you or someone you know suffered from an oil field injury.

Maritime law is a division of law that governs businesses and business activity involved with ships and shipping, as well as any crimes that occur on the open water. This legal division involves separate codes and jurisdictions, aside from national laws. When situations arise that involve insurance claims and property damage of ships and cargo or civil cases arising between businesses or companies and individuals, parties involved must understand how this division of law applies to and governs the resolution of the issues.

RECENT RULINGS

A recent case, Petrobras America, Inc. vs. Vicinay Cadenas, S.A., resulted in the Fifth Circuit’s consideration of the application of maritime law. The court needed to decide which laws would apply to claims arising from oil and gas exploration and production occurring on the Outer Continental Shelf. This dispute involved an incident with an underwater tether chain that allegedly failed. When the chain ruptured, a riser fell to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, which caused a break in a connection between the wellhead and the surface. Consequently, the riser system was lost, and the company experienced lost production due to inability to use its FPSO facility.

The final decision of the district court stated that maritime law did not apply to claims for economic loss when the damage occurred due to an incident and not a specific product. The Fifth Circuit became involved with an appeal and reversed the earlier decision. The final ruling stated that the adjacent state law applied to the case under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and not general maritime rules.

This ruling creates some uncertainty on the application of these laws with regards to gas and oil activities with ships on the sea. Future liability claims and the application of maritime law may be limited, especially with regards to economic and physical damages. However, the facts involved with every case will guide outcomes.