Randy Solet VS Melissa Williams and Miss Redemption, L.L.C.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2008 CA 2206 RANDY SOLET VERSUS MELISSA WILLIAMS AND MISS REDEMPTION L L C Judgment Rendered Mav 8 2009 APPEALED FROM THE THIRTY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF TERREBONNE DOCKET NUMBER 143 339 STATE OF LOUISIANA THE HONORABLE DAVID W ARCENEAUX JUDGE Q Attorneys for the Plaintiff Appellee Randy Solet C Arlen Braud II Michelle O Gallagher Madisonville Louisiana Samuel C Taggard New Orleans Louisiana Attorney for the Defendants Appellants Melissa Williams and Miss Redemption L L C Johnnie A Jones Sr Baton Rouge Louisiana BEFORE nq 1 rv I J PETTIGREW McDONALD HUGHES JJ 11 McDONALD J The Miss plaintiff Solet was room when he owned the boat but it on preparing Randy Solet case LL C Redemption of an oil leak in this slipped on some the captain of a shrimp boat the by Melissa Williams wasn the boat for was t Thereafter in December of 2003 Mr fixed trip a and carrying oil from the leak and filed suit defendants judgment hearing entered questioning by Mr Solet and his 2005 against defendants assert have that jurisdiction that there court testimony by the defendants in the a motion for was erred in not a erred in court insufficient evidence applying an was a action under the Jones Act pursuant to the allowed to join a saving a Jones Act suit pursuant to the to workers 46 D S C saving allowed to state courts to was on December denied did formerly 1333 Mr matter Judiciary Solet filed his injured cure matter subject 46 D S C An for maintenance concurrent jurisdiction have not case bring their Jones 2 error of the risk defense court 30104 to suitor clause of the have rendered in favor of support the judgment and that involving admiralty and maritime jurisdiction the permits was declining subject not suitors clause 28 U S C are default which included 150 000 00 of compensation claim for unseaworthiness Seamen to assumption First the defendants argue that the trial jurisdiction because this Mr Solet trial which new preliminary the confirmation of default a judgment amount a L LC asserting three assignments of appealed the trial Redemption Thereafter attorney and by the judge The defendants filed Defendants the trial April 11 on He notified calls phone filed and answer was held and after extensive was The No by the engine his back injured Williams and Miss Ms October 8 2004 on was 13 2007 against batteries some Ms Williams of the accident but she did not return his He He notified Ms Williams 688 and seaman and wages with Act claims in state Act of 1789 saving to is court In matters suitors with the federal district clause courts Foster Destin v Mr Solet was occurred in the the captain of course of his vessel a Mr Solet the facts was employment surrounding the questioned back up his claims to contradict Mr Solet s account injury despite testimony the accident and his surrounding assignment a and the injury of error has and testified to 700 So 2d 199 202 insufficient evidence no Solet did concerning not three year time was his wages treatment present any proof to to period between the filing We find that under sufficient This resulting injury merit present documentary judgment against them of Mr Solet injury support the to his back and the medical the defendants failed of suit and the confirmation of default these circumstances the was While Mr he received from various doctors evidence This length at accident the the time of his at Second defendants argue that there judgment p 4 La 5 30 97 Trading Corp 96 0803 to prove the facts assignment of error has no merit Third defendants argue that the trial risk to this by a seaman V S C 2d Cir N Y 1980 Solet fundamental place seaman duty to must slipped in some oil Rather case a are not comparative Transp Co Trading Gulf v only Mr Solet also prove that owner s to anyone amount aboard under the Jones Act is to work An injury delegated no apply assumption of the See also Federal Employees To an the vessel provide pursued maritime law doctrine of seaworthiness his to Liability 633 Act 45 954 Mr safe in a Jones Act Johannessen negligence standard applies 655 failed Contributory negligence and assumption of the risk case defenses that bar recovery F 2d 653 court an prevail the absolute Thus if the duty to owner provide does not seaman action on an unseaworthy condition a with pursuant a the a or s reasonably to the proximate seaworthy vessel provide employer general unseaworthiness claim was of prudence will excuse him whether he knew 3 The cause a of may not be seaworthy vessel then should have known of the unseaworthy condition A slippery condition vessel on a unseaworthy condition and form the basis of liability Offshore 1214 Drilling citing Mitchell L Ed 2d 941 App Inc 4 Cir no error p 2 1992 a v 5 Cir 3 25 97 Inc 362 U S 539 Cross Marine Inc was constitute an Diamond v 692 So 2d 1213 80 S Ct 926 598 So 2d 595 unseaworthy 4 La and that negligent thorough review of the of law and Cooper App The trial court found that the vessel were the defendants La Trawler Racer v 1960 and Daugherty the defendants After 96 924 can we record affirm the trial This memorandum we find no court judgment opinion is issued Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal Rule 2 16 1 B AFFIRMED 4 manifest Costs in are error of fact and assessed compliance against with the
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.
