## Facts

- Edward D. Milstead worked for Diamond M Offshore, Inc. on a jack-up drilling rig in navigable waters off Louisiana.
- Milstead was injured during his offshore work.
- Milstead sued in Louisiana state court alleging (1) Jones Act negligence against Diamond M as his employer and (2) general maritime unseaworthiness against Diamond M as vessel owner.
- A jury found Diamond M liable and awarded damages to Milstead.
- Diamond M appealed, challenging the fact findings and the size of the award.
- The court of appeal affirmed, applying Louisiana’s manifest error/clearly wrong standard to the jury’s factual findings.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court granted review limited to the proper appellate standard for reviewing factual determinations in state-court Jones Act and general maritime cases.

## Issues

1. Whether Louisiana appellate courts reviewing jury fact findings in Jones Act and general maritime cases must apply a special federal maritime “heightened” standard of review rather than Louisiana’s manifest error/clearly wrong standard.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Milstead.
- Louisiana appellate courts apply the ordinary manifest error/clearly wrong standard when reviewing factual findings in Jones Act and general maritime cases tried in Louisiana state courts.
- Federal maritime law does not require Louisiana courts to adopt a different, more searching standard of appellate review for factual determinations.

## Legal Principles

- In Louisiana, an appellate court may not disturb a jury’s or trial court’s factual findings unless, after reviewing the entire record, it determines the findings are manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.
- Federal maritime and Jones Act law governs substantive rights and duties, but state courts may apply their own procedural rules for reviewing factual findings on appeal unless those rules impair substantive federal rights.
- Appellate review under manifest error requires deference to the factfinder’s reasonable credibility and evidentiary choices; an appellate court may not reweigh evidence merely because it would have reached a different result.
- Applying Louisiana’s manifest error standard to maritime and Jones Act fact findings does not conflict with federal maritime policy or concurrent state-court jurisdiction over such claims.

## Conclusion

The court held that Louisiana’s manifest error/clearly wrong standard governs appellate review of factual findings in state-court Jones Act and general maritime cases, and it left intact the jury’s liability findings and damages awarded to Milstead.


Milstead v. Diamond M Offshore, Inc., 676 So. 2d 89 (La. 1996)