UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-31416

WANDA ANN FONTENOT; ET AL Plaintiffs RYAN J. FONTENOT, JR; Plaintiff - Appellee and PATTERSON SERVICES, INC., doing business as INTERNATIONAL HAMMERS Intervenor Plaintiff - Appellee

VERSUS

PENNZOIL OIL CO.; ET AL Defendants and COASTAL WIRE ROPE & SUPPLY, INC. Intervenor Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Louisiana 98-CV-932 December 11, 2002

Before JOLLY and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges, and LITTLE,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM:**

* Senior U.S. District Judge, Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. ** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Coastal Wire Rope & Supply, Inc. (“Coastal”) appeals the

judgment by the district court in this product liability suit

brought under the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Coastal is the remaining defendant in a suit arising from an

accident on an offshore oil rig in which it was alleged that wire

slings Coastal had manufactured failed, causing serious injury to

Ryan J. Fontenot. The district court, after a complex bench trial,

made its factual and legal conclusions, apportioning liability

among three defendants, but not Fontenot’s employer, with whom

Fontenot had settled in a so-called Mary Carter agreement. Coastal

alleges numerous errors of fact and law. After careful

consideration of the briefs and arguments made in this appeal, we

conclude that the district court committed no error and accordingly

affirm its judgment essentially for the reasons given in its

careful and comprehensive opinion.

I.

There is a “well-established standard of review applicable to

bench trials, examining questions of law de novo, and reviewing

findings of fact for clear error.” Dunbar Medical Systems, Inc. v.

Gammex Inc.,

(5th Cir. 2000) (citing Gebreyesus

v. F.C. Schaffer & Assoc’s, Inc.,

(5th Cir.

2000).

II.

After examining the evidence, if the reviewing court is left

with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

2 committed, clear error exists and it is our duty to correct this

mistake.” In re Luhr Bros.,

, 338-339 (5th Cir. 1998);

United States v. United States Gypsum Co.,

(1948). The district court made two determinative factual

findings. It concluded that Coastal manufactured the slings, and

that the slings failed below the weight at which they could be

expected to fail. Coastal argues that these conclusions were

clearly erroneous, and that the district court abused its

discretion in admitting and crediting certain expert testimony. We

find that the testimony of Dr. Don Pellow on the matter of the

chemical analysis of the wire rope was properly admitted and that

there was no abuse of the district court’s very wide discretion

over matters of expert testimony. General Electric Co. v. Joiner,

(1997); Mathis v. Exxon,

(5th

Cir. 2002). Taken with the additional documentary evidence and

testimony, we are convinced that the district court’s finding that

Coastal manufactured the slings, and that they failed prematurely,

was not clear error.

The district court also correctly concluded that this case was

governed by federal admiralty law rather than state tort law. The

activities undertaken on the rig satisfied the two-part locality

and connection test set forth in Grubart v. Great Lakes Dredge &

Dock Co.,

(1995). The location prong was uncontested,

and we find that the connection prong is satisfied, because the

“general character of the activity giving rise to the incident

3 shows a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity”.

. This personal injury sustained by a worker on an oil

rig is sufficiently connected to traditional maritime activity to

support federal admiralty tort jurisdiction under Grubart. See

Coats v. Penrod Drilling Corp.,

(5th Cir. 1995).

Applying federal admiralty law, the district court determined

that employee recovery is not to be diminished by the fault of the

employer. Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique,

(1979). The court found that the greatest percentage of fault,

60%, was with Coastal. Two of the remaining parties were each

assessed 20% of the fault. The court properly concluded that,

under Edmonds, reduction of Coastal’s fault by that of

International Hammer would be improper. The district court’s

factual and legal conclusions were correct.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, and based largely on the thorough

opinion of the district court, the judgment is

AFFIRMED.

4