## Facts

- Joseph A. Wink, a Jones Act seaman employed by Rowan Drilling Co., suffered a serious head injury in 1971 when struck by a joint of pipe aboard a drilling tender in the Gulf of Mexico.
- Wink underwent hospitalization and surgery, including a later tantalum cranioplasty performed by a neurosurgeon.
- In 1972, shortly after being released to return to work and without personal counsel, Wink agreed to settle claims arising from the accident.
- Rowan’s counsel prepared and filed a “friendly” federal Jones Act complaint, an answer, and a joint stipulation of facts the same day.
- The stipulation asserted Wink was 50% contributorily negligent and limited recoverable damages to $17,500; the district court approved the settlement and entered judgment that day incorporating the stipulation.
- In 1974, Wink moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to set aside the 1972 judgment and also filed a new Jones Act suit for additional damages from the same injury.
- Wink alleged fraud on the court and misleading conduct by Rowan concerning the extent of his injuries, his competence, and an alleged promise of a lifetime job.
- The district court denied Rule 60(b) relief and dismissed the new suit as barred by res judicata, placing on Wink the burden to prove incapacity or fraud/overreaching.

## Issues

1. When an employer relies on a prior seaman’s settlement and related judgment as a defense, who bears the burden to prove the settlement was fairly made and entered with the seaman’s full understanding of rights?
2. Should a prior “friendly” judgment approving a seaman’s settlement be given res judicata effect absent proof that the settlement satisfied the heightened scrutiny applicable to seamen’s releases?

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the denial of Rule 60(b) relief and reversed the res judicata dismissal of Wink’s later Jones Act action.
- The court held the district court misallocated the burden of proof by requiring Wink to prove incapacity or fraud/overreaching.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings with the burden on Rowan, as the party invoking settlement/judgment as a defense, to prove the settlement was fair and informed.

## Legal Principles

- Seamen are “wards of admiralty,” and settlements or releases of seamen’s claims are subject to careful judicial scrutiny.
- The party asserting a settlement or release as a defense bears the burden to show it was executed by the seaman with a full understanding of rights and consequences.
- Relevant factors include the adequacy of consideration and the nature and quality of medical and legal advice available to the seaman at the time of settlement.
- Heightened scrutiny applies even when a settlement is presented through a “friendly” suit and embodied in a judgment; such a judgment does not automatically foreclose later litigation through res judicata if the settlement’s fairness and informed nature have not been established under the proper burden allocation.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit required that an employer relying on a prior seaman’s settlement and “friendly” judgment must prove the agreement was fair and entered with the seaman’s informed understanding; because the district court improperly placed that burden on the seaman, both the Rule 60(b) ruling and the res judicata dismissal were reversed and remanded.


Wink v. Rowan Drilling Co., 611 F.2d 98 (5th Cir. 1980)