Floyd, et al v. Essex Insurance Co, et al

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 5, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-30704
Summary Calendar
PHILLIP FLOYD; ELIZABETH FLOYD,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
versus
ESSEX INSURANCE CO.; MARSHLAND
ENTERPRISES LLC,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana
(USDC No. 02-CV-709-B)
_______________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, JONES and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the following reasons:

-- 1 of 2 --

2
1. The court applied the correct standard of reasonable care for the shipowner. It
was not a failure to warn of an open and obvious danger. Nor was it for product liability.
Nor was it some different standard applied by state law peculiar to slip and fall cases.
2. The court found that Floyd failed to exercise reasonable care in fishing while
standing near an open hole. The court found the shipowner failed to exercise reasonable
care in allowing Floyd to fish near the open hole under all the circumstances, including
prior experience when other fishermen had stepped into it. The evidence supported the
court’s finding.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --