Conner v. Kraemer-Shows Oilfield Services, LLC
33 F. Supp. 3d 725
W.D. La.2014Background
- Conner, employed by Kraemer-Shows Oilfield Services, alleges he slipped on a NorAm-provided rig staircase laden with drilling mud and lubricants on Nov. 23, 2010, at an Exco Resources site in Louisiana.
- Conner filed suit on Nov. 17, 2011 in state court; Exco removed the case to federal court based on diversity; Kraemer and Exco were dismissed, leaving NorAm as the remaining defendant.
- Conner sues under custodial liability theory, asserting the staircase was under NorAm’s custody and contained a defect causing his injuries.
- NorAm moves for summary judgment, arguing no defect and that any risk was not unreasonable; Conner opposes, citing evidence of inadequate cleaning and maintenance.
- The court applies Article 2317.1 and considers whether a defect existed and whether the risk was unreasonable, applying Louisiana open-and-obvious risk precedents.
- The court denies NorAm’s motion, finding genuine disputes of material fact as to (a) whether the staircase contained a defect and (b) whether the risk was open and obvious, requiring trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the staircase contain a defect under Article 2317.1? | Conner; staircase buildup created a defect | NorAm; no defect present | Genuine dispute of material fact |
| exists | |||
| Was the staircase’s risk of harm unreasonable? | Conner; risk was unreasonable due to mud/oil buildup | NorAm; risk was open and obvious and reasonable to guard | Question for trial; not summary judgment |
| Is open-and-obvious risk a proper summary-judgment question after Broussard? | Open-and-obvious is a jury issue, not for summary judgment | Open-and-obvious excuses duty | Open-and-obvious is a factual question for the jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Todd v. Angel, 132 So.3d 453 (La.App. 2d Cir.2014) (defect/open-and-obvious risk issues fact-intensive)
- Nicholson v. Horseshoe Entm’t, 58 So.3d 565 (La.App. 2d Cir.2011) (definition of defect under Article 2317.1)
- Barrow v. Brownell, 938 So.2d 118 (La.App. 1st Cir.2006) (standard for defect and unreasonable risk inquiries)
- Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Bldgs., 113 So.3d 175 (La.2013) (open-and-obvious risk proper as breach element; jury question)
- Graupmann v. Nunamaker Family Ltd. P’ship, 136 So.3d 863 (La.App. 1st Cir.2013) (open-and-obvious risk determination is fact-dependent)