Clardy v. Bruce Foods Corp
6:09-cv-01660
| W.D. La. | Jul 31, 2014Background
- Clardy sued Bruce Foods and Entergy; Entergy sought indemnity from Penick under LOPLSA.
- Penick's third-party demand against Penick was granted; Entergy's indemnity claim was denied.
- Bruce Foods required washout of trucks near Entergy lines; washout area near overhead power lines.
- Clardy, a Penick driver, was injured washing out a truck bed in Bruce Foods' designated area.
- Bruce Foods controlled the washout area and supervised the washing process; Penick had no control over the worksite.
- Entergy had prior notice about trucks contacting the line in the washout area and knowledge of operations prior to the accident.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who is the ‘person responsible for the work’ under LOPLSA §143. | Entergy argues Penick responsible. | Penick argues Bruce Foods bears responsibility. | Penick not responsible; Bruce Foods is the responsible party. |
| Does Penick have a statutory duty to notify under LOPLSA §143A? | Entergy claims duty to notify rests with any party near the worksite. | Penick had no control over Bruce Foods' washout area. | No duty for Penick; Bruce Foods held responsible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hullum v. Skyhook Corp., 753 F.2d 1334 (5th Cir. 1985) (supports blaming those with control over the worksite for safety purposes)
- CHS, Inc. v. Plaquemines Holdings, LLC, 735 F.3d 231 (5th Cir. 2013) (Erie-grounded methodology for interpreting state law; civilian approach to Louisiana law)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment standard; burden-shifting and admissible evidence)