Jones v. Buck Kreihs Marine Repair, L.L.C.
122 So. 3d 1181
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiff Alvin Jones, a UBT employee, was struck on the head by a falling box from an elevated conveyor boom and became paralyzed while walking beneath ongoing overhead work at UBT’s facility on Feb. 19, 2010.
- BKM sent two employees (Landry and Coleman) to perform removal/replacement of weight scales on the overhead conveyor; UBT supervisor Layne Bennett supervised and unloaded replacement boxes from the boom.
- No warnings, barricades, cones, or other protections were placed beneath the overhead work; Jones was unaware of the work above him when struck.
- Relevant documents in the record: a General Services Agreement between BKM and a related entity (USUOC) with a safety-precautions clause, and UBT’s Contractor Safety Manual (acknowledged by BKM) that emphasizes contractor safety obligations and reporting hazards.
- Trial court granted BKM’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Jones’s claims; the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding genuine issues of material fact exist about whether BKM (via contract/manual and employee conduct) owed and breached a duty to protect those below the boom.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BKM owed a duty to protect people beneath overhead work (contractual/special relationship) | Jones: BKM assumed safety duties by contract/manual and its on-site employees had obligations to barricade/warn | BKM: No affirmative duty to third parties absent special relationship; safety duties were for its employees only | Court: A duty existed as a matter of law for purposes of summary judgment; disputed facts preclude dismissal |
| Whether BKM breached any safety duty (e.g., barricading, warnings) | Jones: BKM employees failed to take precautions (barricades/warnings) while working overhead | BKM: (Implicit) worksite safety and supervision were UBT’s responsibility; BKM did not cause the falling box | Court: Evidence (contract/manual/OSHA duties and employee conduct) raises genuine fact issues as to breach |
| Causation — whether BKM’s conduct was a cause-in-fact of Jones’s injury | Jones: But for BKM’s failure to warn/barricade, injury probably would not have occurred | BKM: The proximate cause was Bennett’s negligence in handling the box | Court: But-for causation is plausibly met; material factual disputes mean summary adjudication is improper |
| Whether OSHA/regulatory obligations and contract provisions preclude summary judgment | Jones: OSHA rules and contractual safety provisions support negligence finding | BKM: Regulatory duties do not automatically create third‑party tort liability; obligations may be non-delegable or limited | Court: OSHA and contract/manual provisions create triable issues of duty and breach; summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Hutchinson v. Knights of Columbus, 866 So.2d 228 (La. 2004) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Roberts v. Benoit, 605 So.2d 1032 (La. 1991) (cause-in-fact and foreseeability analysis / "but for" test)
- Mathieu v. Imperial Toy Corp., 646 So.2d 318 (La. 1994) (duty-risk analysis formulation)
- Bujol v. Entergy Services, Inc., 922 So.2d 1113 (La. 2004) (contractual assumption of safety duties and related principles)
- Gatlin v. Entergy Corp., 904 So.2d 31 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2005) (employee compliance with OSHA and relevance of OSHA violations to negligence)