Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Kelvin Dunn v. Marquette Transportation Co., 17-30889 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 17-30889
Filed: Dec. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case: 17-30889 Document: 00514755523 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-30889 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 11, 2018 KELVIN DUNN, Lyle W. Cayce Plaintiff - Appellee Clerk v. MARQUETTE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, L.L.C., Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:16-CV-13545 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* K
More
Case: 17-30889 Document: 00514755523 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-30889 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 11, 2018 KELVIN DUNN, Lyle W. Cayce Plaintiff - Appellee Clerk v. MARQUETTE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, L.L.C., Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:16-CV-13545 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Kelvin Dunn sued Marquette Transportation Company for unseaworthiness, maintenance and cure, and Jones Act negligence after an injury sustained on the vessel owned by Marquette. After a two-day bench trial, the district court awarded damages for past and future wages, future medical costs, past and future fringe benefits, and an award for pain and suffering. Marquette appealed the damages award, arguing that Dunn’s * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 17-30889 Document: 00514755523 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2018 No. 17-30889 negligence should mitigate the damages, the evidence does not support the damage award, and the district court incorrectly found unseaworthiness. We have reviewed the briefs, the applicable law, and relevant parts of the record, and heard oral argument. The district court committed no reversible error. The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially on the basis carefully explained by the district court in its 26-page September 6, 2017 Order. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer