(caption unavailable)

* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that
have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on
the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 92-5074
Summary Calendar
CURTIS RAY COLEMAN & KATIE COLEMAN,
Plaintiffs, Intervenor-Defendants, Appellees,
VERSUS
HELMERICH & PAYNE INTERNATIONAL
DRILLING CO., ET AL.,
Intervenor-Plaintiffs-Appellees,
VERSUS
ARCO OIL & GAS CO., ET AL.,
Defendants,
ARCO OIL & GAS CO.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Louisiana
88-3150
June 28, 1993
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*

-- 1 of 2 --

2
By this appeal, Arco Oil & Gas Co. (Arco) seeks
reversal of a judgment entered against it in favor of Curtis Ray
Coleman and Katie Coleman, based upon a jury finding that the
injuries sustained by Curtis Ray Coleman were the result of "ruin,"
within the meaning of Article 2322 of the Louisiana Civil Code, in
the condition of a winch wheel on an offshore drilling platform
owned by Arco. At the close of the plaintiffs' evidence, at the
close of all the evidence, and after entry of judgment, Arco moved
for judgment as a matter of law for the reason that under the facts
of this case, the evidence was not sufficient to support the jury's
finding of "ruin." The district court overruled all such motions;
and Arco now appeals to this Court on the sole ground of the
sufficiency of the evidence.
Having carefully considered the briefs, the record
excerpts, the reply brief, and relevant portions of the trial
transcript, we have concluded that the evidence is such that
reasonable minds could differ as to whether or not a condition of
"ruin" caused the injuries to Mr. Coleman and that the district
court was correct in submitting this case to the jury and in
declining to render judgment as a matter of law for Arco, after the
jury's verdict.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court
entered in this matter.

-- 2 of 2 --