Joshua Williams v. TESCO Services, Inc., 719 F.3d 968

Williams injured on DeSoto drilling rig drilling casing; SWE owned well, DeSoto drilling crew including Williams; TESCO contracted to provide casing services with a TESCO tool; SWE’s On-Site Representative coordinated operations; Top drive misalignment led to realignment by DeSoto crew including Williams, while Long, Anderson, Pendergraff were in doghouse; Williams alleges negligence against Anderson (common law) and TESCO (vicarious liability) for failure to ensure safety; district court granted summary judgment to Anderson and TESCO on foreseeability and control grounds; Williams and Chartis appealed, consolidated, and district court’s grant affirmed by this court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Anderson owed a duty of care to Williams under Arkansas law.	Williams (via Shaw Group) argues contract-implied duty to be safe.	Anderson/TSCO say no duty beyond contract; not foreseeability.	No duty to foresee unforeseen harm; affirmed.
Whether TESCO’s contract created a duty to police SWE/DeSoto safety rules.	TESCO breached duty by failing to enforce safety; control issue.	TESCO not required to police DeSoto/SWE rules; not sole contractor.	Contract did not extend duty to police others’ safety responsibilities; affirmed.
Who controlled the rig’s drawworks/top drive during casing operations?	Anderson controlled operations; should be liable.	Long, DeSoto supervisors controlled; Anderson lacked control.	Long controlled; Anderson not liable for control; affirmed.
Whether Anderson’s exhortation to Long to “pick it up” was foreseeability-based liability.	Encouragement could foreseeably cause harm.	No substantial or foreseeability link; lack of control.	No liability for encouragement; affirmed.
Whether Williams could amend to add direct training claim against TESCO.	Rule 15 liberal amendment should be allowed.	Late amendment prejudicial; futile after merits ruling.	Denied amendment; affirmed.

The Shaw Group, Inc. v. Marcum, 516 F.3d 1061 (8th Cir. 2008) (contractual duty to prevent foreseeable risk; duty limited by control)
Koch v. Southwest Electric Power Co., 544 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2008) (duty to foresee reasonably possible events; not the unforeseen)
Ethyl Corp. v. Johnson, 49 S.W.3d 644 (Ark. 2001) (negligence premised on foreseeability; not for unforeseeable)
Marlar v. Daniel, 247 S.W.3d 473 (Ark. 2007) (duty question is a question of law)
Cobb v. Indian Springs Inc., 522 S.W.2d 383 (Ark. 1975) (restatement-like substantial encouragement; foreseeability requirement)
Smith v. Hansen, 914 S.W.2d 285 (Ark. 1996) (authority to stop work and safety responsibilities)
The Shaw Group, Inc. v. Marcum, 516 F.3d 1061 (8th Cir. 2008) (reiterated)