# Randall Ex Rel. Estate of Randall v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · February 11, 1994 · 13 F.3d 888

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9413468

## Case

- **Full name:** Barbara S. RANDALL, on Her Own Behalf and as Personal Representative of the Estate of the Decedent, Theodore F. Randall, Jr., and on the Behalf of the Children, Rod Anthony Randall and Holly Leann Randall, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Et Al., Defendants, Sea Savage, Inc., Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 11, 1994
- **Citations:** 13 F.3d 888; 1994 A.M.C. 1217; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 2427; 1994 WL 20144
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Parker
- **Judges:** King, Jolly, Parker
- **Cited by:** 132 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Carl Bienvenu v. Texaco, Inc. Director, Office of Worker's Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor Insurance Company of North America, 164 F.3d 901 (1999).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9413468

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the defense’s expert cannot explain why the phone 18 was found in defendant’s car, defendant was in that parking lot that night, defendant was 19 sweating, and defendant matched the robber’s description
- holding that Heck did not bar the § 1983 claim because the 14 conviction arose from a no contest plea and did not depend on the legality of the challenged 15 search
- holding a pilot who flew over the ocean as a fish spotter was covered under the LHWCA
- holding that clause indemnifying party "for losses `howsoever arising' [was not] sufficiently clear and unequivocal to shift liability for Chevron's negligence onto Sea Savage"
- holding that for claims dismissed with prejudice, a plaintiff 14 is not required to reallege such claims in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve 15 them for appeal

## Opinion text

ROBERT M. PARKER, District Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part:
I concur with the majority opinion, with the exception of the remittitur portion contained in Section III., C., 1., Damages; Pain and Suffering. I am persuaded that the district court’s assessment of the facts of this case as it relates to the award of damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00 for pain and suffering is not only not clearly erroneous, but falls within the bounds of reasonable compensation under the circumstances. I therefore limit my dissent to the remittitur ordered.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9413468. Public record. Not legal advice.