Nita Plaisance and Norman Plaisance, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Romanda Sue, Inc., et al., Defendants-appellees, 861 F.2d 858 (5th Cir. 1988)
Annotate this CaseSummary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 15, 1988.
Joseph J. Weigand, Jr. Weigand, Weigand & Meyer, Houma, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Robert N. Habans, Jr., Habans & Bologna, New Orleans, La., for Romanda Sue, Inc.
Steven W. Usdin, Wayne Lee, Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittman & Hutchinson, New Orleans, La., for Phillips Petroleum Co.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Charles Schwartz, Jr., Judge.
Before GEE, WILLIAMS and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant complains generally of various claimed errors by the trial court. We agree with the reasoning of its opinion, however; and its findings of fact are not shown to be clearly erroneous--a demonstration not attempted by appellant.
Drachenberg v. Canal Barge Co., Inc., 571 F.2d 912 (5th Cir. 1978), does not support appellant's contention that a mooring cleat which was part of another's dock should be considered part of ROMANDA SUE, where these were connected by a line only. The marine arm in Drachenberg was firmly affixed to the vessel to such a degree as to have become an integral part of it, and was under common ownership with the vessel. Indeed, Drachenberg itself cites Davis v. W. Bruns & Co., 476 F.2d 246 (5th Cir. 1973), holding that a connection by guy wires was insufficient for such purposes.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
