Opinion
Civil Action No. 99-3735, Section "N".
September 8, 2000.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant R B Falcon Drilling USA, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment. For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Plaintiff Jimmy Ray Sellers alleges in his complaint that on September 8, 1998 he injured his back while employed as a seaman by the defendant, R B Falcon Drilling USA, Inc. ("Falcon"). In the instant motion, Falcon points out that Mr. Sellers has presented multiple versions of when and how his back was injured. Falcon cites Mr. Sellers' deposition testimony, the accident report, the deposition testimony of a claims supervisor, and the histories taken by several physicians wherein Mr. Sellers made conflicting statements as to the date on which he was injured and the activity he was performing when he was injured. in light of these inconsistencies, Falcon argues that no reasonable fact finder could find it responsible for Mr. Sellers' injuries and, therefore, that it is entitled to summary judgment.
In response, Mr. Sellers concedes that he has made some inconsistent statements regarding his injury. However, Mr. Sellers points to several lines of evidence, including his deposition testimony, his supervisor's deposition testimony, the histories taken by his treating physicians, and the accident report, which demonstrate an overall consistency in his allegations regarding the time period and work activity he was performing when injured. Mr. Sellers also asserts that many of his inconsistencies resulted from confusion over the meaning of certain words when being questioned about his alleged injury.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party demonstrates that there is "no genuine issue of material fact," and that it is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law. See FED. R. Civ. PRO. 56(c). In resolving a summary judgment motion, a court may not evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, weigh the evidence, or resolve factual disputes; so long as the evidence in the record is such that a reasonable jury drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party could arrive at a verdict in the party's favor, the court must deny the motion. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
In the case at bar, Falcon has cited evidence which may tend to raise questions regarding Mr. Sellers' credibility; however, the Fifth Circuit has routinely found summary judgment inappropriate in such situations. See, e.g. Leonard v. Dixie Well Serv. Supply, Inc., 828 F.2d 291, 294 (5th Cir. 1987) (reversing grant of summary judgment in favor of Jones Act defendant where district court improperly weighed evidence and found defendant's employment records "inherently more reliable and accurate" than testimony of plaintiff and co-worker regarding amount of time plaintiff worked on vessel); Lindsey v. Prive Corp., 987 F.2d 324, 327 and n. 4 (5th Cir. 1993) (reversing grant of summary judgment and noting that, "[i]n a motion for summary judgment, the district court is not called upon to make credibility assessments of conflicting evidence . . .");International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1265 (5th Cir. 1991) (reversing summary judgment in favor of defendant where district court improperly determined that jury would have believed defendant's assertion of good faith); Honore v. Douglas, 833 F.2d 565, 569 (5th Cir. 1987) (reversing grant of summary) judgment in favor of defendant where defendant's motive for terminating plaintiff raised issues of credibility and motivation); Zerangue v. TSP Newsnapers, Inc., 814 F.2d 1066, 1071 (5th Cir. 1987) (reversing grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant where witness's credibility was crucial to the case). The jury must decide whether the inconsistencies in Mr. Sellers' accounts of his injuries were the result of honest mistake or evil machination. Summary judgement, therefore, is inappropriate. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant R B Falcon Drilling USA, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 7th day of Sept., 2000.