Williams v. Diamond – $8.5m compensatory damages award to Jones Act seaman from Texas jury, affirmed by Texas First Circuit

Willie Williams was working on a Diamond Offshore rig on January 7, 2008. Trying to repair elevators on the rig, he suddenly felt pain in his back. He got off the rig, and now seven years later, received a judgment for $8.5 million dollars.

Mr. Williams had prior back pain, but he was able to work through it. That changed after this incident. Mr. Williams had comparatively minor findings on an MRI but he had significant back pain, radiating into his legs. A microdiscectomy helped his leg pain, but his back pain continued. He underwent a fusion, but after the fusion he had foot drop and he was unable to raise his toes.

Mr. Williams was earning $134,000, yielding lost future earnings at $2,254,275 and lost past earnings at $557,793.

Dr. Kenneth McCoin testified as Williams’s economics expert. He testified that he calculated Williams’s past lost earning capacity, measured from the date of the incident to the trial date, at $557,793 and his future lost earning capacity at $2,254,275.

The jury awarded Williams $500,000 in past physical pain and mental anguish, $3.4 million in future physical pain and mental anguish, $250,000 in past physical impairment, $1.7 million in future physical impairment, $250,000 in past disfigurement, $325,000 in future disfigurement, and $440,000 in future medical care expenses. General damages totaled $6,425,000, and gave the plaintiff 10% comparative fault.

The trial court prevented Diamond from showing about an hour of surveillance video. The video showed Williams working outside. Williams testified at trial that he could indeed work outside in a limited basis, just with significant pain, so the appellate court concluded it was within the trial court’s decision to exclude it. After all, the appellate court reasoned, Mr. Williams had admitted he could work outside.

The appellate court, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed the damages award. The dissenting judge suggested the Supreme Court should look at it, so this case is not yet over.