This case involves a Jones Act and general maritime law claim by seaman Danny Paul McGuffie, who was injured aboard Transworld's drilling rig when struck by a pipe that had catapulted out of control due to a broken ramp; the toolpusher had repeatedly refused crew requests to halt operations and repair the ramp. A jury found the defendant negligent and the vessel unseaworthy, awarding the plaintiff and his wife compensatory damages plus $500,000 in punitive damages. On the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the court modified the judgment to strike the punitive damages. The court held that, under general maritime law precedents such as The Amiable Nancy, an employer cannot be held liable for punitive damages based solely on the reckless or wanton conduct of a foreman absent evidence that corporate officials knew of or approved the conduct or were at fault in hiring the foreman.
The case arose after barges broke loose from a mooring device during dredging operations in Louisiana waters and damaged oil production facilities and a pipeline, leading to a settled tort claim for $140,000. The settling parties, through their insurer Fidelity & Casualty, then sought reimbursement from Aetna Casualty & Surety Company under comprehensive general liability policies issued to the dredging companies Lake Charles and Parker Brothers. The court ruled that Aetna's watercraft exclusion did not bar coverage because liability could rest on the separate, unexcluded ground of selecting and owning an inadequate mooring device, and that the insureds needed only to demonstrate potential liability under the Wisconsin Barge Line test, which they satisfied. It further held that Fidelity & Casualty could recover the portions of the settlement attributable to Lake Charles but not the amount paid on behalf of Parker Brothers alone.
The Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana sued to reclaim a large tract of land in St. Mary Parish, alleging that 1790s deeds transferring the land from the tribe to defendants' ancestors were invalid under the Indian Nonintercourse Act because they were not made at a public treaty under U.S. authority. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. It held that the tribe's claims were extinguished and barred by the preclusive provisions of the Louisiana Land Claims Acts, which Congress enacted after the 1803 Louisiana Purchase to establish an exclusive procedure requiring claimants to register and have titles confirmed by a board of commissioners and ultimately by Congress, with strict time limits whose violation rendered claims void.
This case involved a personal injury attorney seeking to enjoin major liability insurance companies from publishing advertisements that he alleged improperly influenced jurors to reduce damage awards, thereby tampering with juries and obstructing justice. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and denied the requested injunction. The core reasoning was that the ads constituted protected speech on matters of public interest under the First Amendment rather than commercial speech, triggering a heavy presumption against prior restraints; although a potential conflict with fair trial rights existed, it was more remote than in precedents like Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, and alternative safeguards such as voir dire and jury instructions could address any impact without suppressing publication.
The case concerned a constitutional challenge by an employer and prospective employee to a St. Mary Parish ordinance requiring transient workers and those seeking new jobs to register with a franchisee, submit fingerprints, photos, and personal history details, and pay a fee to obtain an employment card, enacted under state authority to address crime linked to population growth from the offshore oil industry. Plaintiffs claimed violations of the Commerce Clause, right to travel, right to privacy, equal protection, and protections against unreasonable searches and self-incrimination. The court rejected the privacy claim, concluding that the mandated disclosures did not involve sensitive personal matters within the zone protected by the Due Process Clause, as supported by precedents such as Whalen v. Roe and Paul v. Davis. It further analyzed the right-to-travel challenge under a less stringent standard than strict scrutiny, distinguishing the ordinance from cases imposing severe penalties on interstate movement.
This case concerned claims for wrongful death and personal injuries from a single-vehicle accident in which the tread separated from a Goodyear radial tire on a new Ford Mercury Cougar, causing the car to leave the road and strike a culvert. The driver, who had a blood-alcohol level of .18% and was traveling over 100 mph, was killed, and a passenger was seriously injured. After reviewing expert testimony on tire construction, bonding, and testing standards, the court analyzed the tire's maximum safe operating speed of 85 mph against the vehicle's capabilities, the adequacy of warnings in the owner's manual, and whether the tread separation constituted a defect under Louisiana products-liability principles. The court ultimately found liability and awarded the passenger damages for medical expenses and general damages.
torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory
Affiliations
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit — appointed by Ronald Reagan
District Court, W.D. Louisiana — appointed by Gerald Ford