561 F. App'x 407
5th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiff Danyon McCarroll was employed by Grand Isle Shipyard, Inc. (GIS), an independent contractor on BP’s Atlantis platform; Baker Mo (successor Wood Group/Mo Services) was the crane operator contractor on the same platform.
- On July 2, 2009, GIS employees were told by their GIS foreman to assist with a cargo transfer using Baker’s crane; McCarroll slipped and fell on a wet deck after retrieving a pry bar from GIS property.
- McCarroll claimed he was "turned over" to Baker and was under Baker’s (Wood Group’s) supervision at the time of injury, suing under OCSLA and Louisiana negligence law.
- Wood Group moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no legal duty because it did not supervise, employ, or control McCarroll.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Wood Group, finding no genuine dispute that Baker did not exercise supervisory authority over McCarroll.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, concluding Louisiana law would not impose supervisory duty absent transfer of control and McCarroll produced no evidence of such a transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Baker/Wood Group owed a duty to McCarroll under Louisiana law as applied via OCSLA | McCarroll: he was "turned over" to Baker and thus was under Baker supervision during the unload, creating a duty | Wood Group: no employment, contractual, or supervisory relationship; GIS retained control and supplied tools; no duty owed to another contractor's employee beyond ordinary care | Held: No duty. No genuine dispute that GIS retained supervision; Wood Group did not assume supervisory control |
| Whether material fact exists that Baker assumed control over McCarroll | McCarroll: factual dispute exists about transfer of supervisory control | Wood Group: record lacks evidence of Baker instruction, direction, or provision of materials to McCarroll | Held: No genuine issue of material fact; plaintiff produced no evidence of Baker supervision |
| Whether OCSLA requires a different result than Louisiana negligence principles | McCarroll: invoked OCSLA to apply adjacent-state law (Louisiana) to his negligence claim | Wood Group: applied same Louisiana standards; no conflict with OCSLA identified | Held: Louisiana negligence law governs under OCSLA and does not conflict with federal law here |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | McCarroll: summary judgment improper given asserted factual dispute about supervision | Wood Group: entitled to summary judgment as no evidence raised a triable issue | Held: Summary judgment affirmed — reasonable jury could not find Baker supervised McCarroll |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenwood 950, L.L.C. v. Chesapeake Louisiana, L.P., 683 F.3d 666 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S.) (standard for genuine issue of material fact at summary judgment)
- Rodrigue v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 395 U.S. 352 (U.S.) (OCSLA directs application of adjacent-state law as federal law)
- Lafont v. Chevron, U.S.A., 593 So. 2d 416 (La. Ct. App.) (independent contractor duty limits under Louisiana law)
- Lemann v. Essen Lane Daiquiries, Inc., 923 So. 2d 627 (La.) (five-part negligence analysis; duty as threshold legal question)