Court rejects argument worker’s death not ‘especially tragic’

An appellate court dismissed an energy company’s argument that the circumstances surrounding the death of a subcontractor were not “tragic” enough to support a $2 million award to his widow.

In Mays v. Chevron Pipe Line Co., the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed on Monday a district court’s decision to uphold a jury’s finding that the Chevron Corp. subsidiary bore substantial responsibility for an explosion that killed the worker on a natural gas platform.

James Mays worked for Furmanite American Inc., a subcontractor of Houston-based Chevron Pipe Line. On Sept. 13, 2014, he was killed while servicing a valve on the platform.

Mr. Mays’ widow sued Chevron Pipe Line, alleging the company failed to maintain the valves that Mr. Mays was working on. The suit also claimed that the company misinformed him about the valve’s manufacturer, which led him to inadvertently break the pipeline’s pressure barrier, triggering the explosion that killed him.

Chevron claimed immunity under Louisiana’s workers compensation scheme since Mr. Mays was working in Louisiana waters.

Mr. Mays’ widow argued that if the accident was covered by the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act that Chevron Pipe Line was not entitled to the exclusive remedy under the Louisiana Workers Compensation Act.

A jury found that Mr. Mays’ case fell under the federal act because he was working on the outer continental shelf and that state immunity did not apply. The jury found Chevron Pipe Line 70% at fault for Mr. Mays’ death and awarded his widow $2 million. The company filed a motion in district court for judgment as a matter of law, which was denied.

On appeal, Chevron Pipe Line claimed that the link between its operations and Mr. May’s death was indirect and that the district court abused its discretion by failing to reduce the $2 million award to Mr. Mays’ widow, arguing that the facts were not “especially tragic” and supported, at most, a $700,000 award.

The court held that the jury heard sufficient evidence to determine that there was a significant causal link between Mr. Mays’ death and the company’s activities. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to reduce the jury award.

Although Chevron Pipe Line argued that Mr. Mays died instantly and the record didn’t show evidence that his wife suffered “extraordinary” mental distress, the appellate court disagreed, noting that Mrs. Mays was unable to see her husband’s body post-accident “because it was so badly mangled” and that he could not be buried in the wooden casket chosen before his death because of the strong odor from spending time floating in gas-tainted water.