799 F.3d 317
5th Cir.2015Background
- On Nov. 8, 2010, James Johnson (drilling superintendent) was shot on the HIGH ISLAND VII after gunmen boarded via stairs blocked by a moved valve; he sued for negligence under general maritime law among other claims.
- Several entities were involved in the rig’s operation and employment structure (Transocean affiliates, TSSNL, GlobalSantaFe Offshore Services, Inc. (“GSF”), PSL, PPI, Afren); Johnson amended to add GSF based on W-2s naming GSF as employer for some rig hands.
- The district court granted summary judgment for GSF on Jones Act and general maritime negligence/unseaworthiness claims; Johnson appealed only the general maritime negligence vicarious-liability claim against GSF.
- Key factual points favoring plaintiff: GSF issued W-2s listing itself as employer for four rig workers, paid their wages, assisted with immigration, and (possibly) provided some training to one mechanic.
- Key factual points favoring defendant: declarations and testimony that GSF’s role was limited to payroll/paymaster functions, that TSSNL/Transocean entities supervised day‑to‑day rig operations and crew, and no evidence GSF hired, fired, supervised, furnished tools, or controlled the rig hands’ work.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GSF was employer of rig hands for vicarious liability under general maritime law | W-2/payroll relationship and payment make GSF the employer (payroll employer) | GSF only acted as a paymaster; lacked control/hiring/firing/supervision rights | No — no reasonable jury could find employment: absence of control and other indicia defeats vicarious liability |
| Whether payroll/payment alone suffices to establish employment for maritime respondeat superior | Reliance on Spinks/"payroll employer" doctrine — payroll employer can be liable unless it divested control | Payment is relevant but not dispositive; control remains the key inquiry | Rejected — payment/W-2s insufficient; plaintiff bears burden to show employment relationship |
| Whether Jones Act caselaw should govern standard for vicarious liability under general maritime law | Use Jones Act’s liberal construction and broader employer definitions to find GSF liable | General maritime law adopts common-law agency/control test; Jones Act liberal construction not controlling here | Jones Act cases informative but not controlling; common-law agency control test applies |
| Allocation of burden at summary judgment on employment issue | Johnson argued GSF should have to show it divested control (per Spinks) | Defendant says plaintiff bears burden to show employment; at summary judgment defendant need only show absence of evidentiary support | Court held plaintiff bears burden; GSF met summary judgment burden by pointing to absence of evidence of control |
Key Cases Cited
- Stoot v. D & D Catering Serv., Inc., 807 F.2d 1197 (5th Cir. 1987) (adopting agency-based vicarious liability in general maritime law)
- Standard Oil Co. v. Anderson, 212 U.S. 215 (U.S. 1909) (borrowed servant doctrine; factors for control include power of discharge and payment of wages)
- United States v. W. M. Webb, Inc., 397 U.S. 179 (U.S. 1970) (control is the critical factor in maritime employment analysis)
- Gaudet v. Exxon Corp., 562 F.2d 351 (5th Cir. 1977) (articulating factors for borrowed employee analysis)
- Guidry v. S. La. Contractors, Inc., 614 F.2d 447 (5th Cir. 1980) (borrowed servant and payroll-employer discussion)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (U.S. 1992) (common-law agency test: right to control manner and means)
- Spinks v. Chevron Oil Co., 507 F.2d 216 (5th Cir. 1975) (payroll employer liable under Jones Act where employer retained indicia of employment)
- Barbetta v. S/S Bermuda Star, 848 F.2d 1364 (5th Cir. 1988) (respondeat superior predicated on master‑servant control)