Fifth Circuit Affirms Damages Awards in McBride v. Estis Well Service, L.L.C.
Fifth Circuit Affirms Damages Awards in McBride v. Estis Well Service, L.L.C.
by: John Yadamec
No. 16-30481, 2017 WL 1321979; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6159 (5th Cir. April 10, 2017)In 2014, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its en banc decision in McBride v. Estis Well Service, L.L.C., 768 F.3d 382. In McBride, the court in a splintered decision held that punitive damages are not available under the Jones Act or general maritime law in claims brought by seamen or their estate representatives for personal injury or death. Id. at 384. Following that decision, a weeklong bench trial commenced, at the conclusion of which the judge awarded damages to McBride, on behalf of Skye Sonnier’s minor daughter, for his death. Those damages included compensation for loss of past support, loss of future support, and survival damages because of pre-death fear and conscious pain and suffering. The district court also awarded damages and cure to Saul Touchet for injuries sustained in the same accident that killed Sonnier. Specifically, the court ordered Estis Well Service (“Estis”) to pay future lost earnings/loss of earning capacity and future medical expenses, as well as cure until Touchet reached maximum medical improvement. Estis appealed the awards to both claimants.First, Estis argued that McBride should not recover for conscious suffering and fear before his death because objective evidence showed that Sonnier was unconscious immediately after the accident. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court’s findings that Sonnier ran for his life and tried to protect himself as the structure on which he was working collapsed around him. Further, eyewitness testimony at trial established that he was conscious and aware for at least a few minutes after the incident, and possibly as long as five.Next, the Fifth Circuit determined that the award for loss of past and future support was appropriate, based on the evidence given by a vocational expert as to Sonnier’s earnings at the time of the accident. The court also rejected the argument that loss of support awards in favor of a minor dependent should be based solely on the amount of child support obligation. Additionally, the award was appropriate because Sonnier was “a devoted father who . . . provided the primary means of support for the child.”Estis also argued that the district court erred in awarding Touchet cure until he reaches maximum medical improvement and an additional $55,185 in future medical expenses. Because the $55,185 was based on the appellant’s tort liability, and the district court explicitly ordered that it additionally pay cure until maximum medical improvement, the award was not a lump sum future cure payment. Also, the district court separately awarded future cure payments specifically limited to continued treatment; specifically, a surgical plan and ongoing psychological therapy. Because the awards were specific and supported by physician testimony, the district court did not err in its judgment.Finally, the Fifth Circuit declined to find the lost earnings award was incorrect. Although Estis obtained a video of Touchet fishing for crabs, his physicians testified that he was nevertheless permanently disabled to returning to oilfield work. Because the trial court found the testimony credible, the appellate court declined to say that the damages award on this issue was clearly erroneous.
