Lebrun v. Baker Hughes Inc, 6:15-cv-01828

Jonathan Lebrun, a Baker Hughes mud sampler, worked aboard Transocean’s drillship DEEPWATER CHAMPION (total ~104 days; last hitch Mar 13–Apr 24, 2015). He alleges repetitive opening of a vacuum-sealed shaker shack door caused a lumbar injury requiring surgery.
Lebrun sued under maritime law; court previously found he was not a Jones Act seaman and treated him as a longshoreman under the LHWCA §905(b), preserving negligence claims against the vessel operator (Transocean).
Transocean moved for summary judgment arguing it had no turnover-duty liability because the shaker door condition was open and obvious and the "no-alternative" exception does not apply.
Lebrun conceded the door condition was open and obvious but argued (1) the "no-alternative" exception applied because his only real alternative was quitting, and (2) alternatively that Transocean retained "active control" of the venting system and thus owed an active-control duty.
Record evidence: multiple coworkers and Transocean personnel acknowledged the venting could make the door hard or sometimes impossible to open, but coworkers routinely opened it or got assistance; Transocean had a process to have vessel personnel reduce venting on request.
Court granted summary judgment to Transocean on the turnover-duty claim (including ruling the no-alternative exception did not apply), but declined to grant judgment as to any active-control theory because Transocean had not moved on that duty and the plaintiff raised it late.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Transocean breached the turnover duty by leaving a hazardous shaker-shack door condition	Lebrun: door was effectively unopenable at times and he had no realistic alternative but to wrestle with it (no-alternative exception)	Transocean: door condition was open and obvious; turnover duty excludes open/obvious hazards and no-alternative exception does not apply	Court: turnover duty not breached; condition was open and obvious and no-alternative exception fails; summary judgment for Transocean on turnover duty
Whether Transocean had active control over the shaker room/venting such that it remained liable	Lebrun: Transocean controlled the venting system and thus retained active control, so it owed duty to exercise care	Transocean: (not fully briefed on active control in motion) denies supervisory control over how plaintiff performed his job	Court: did not decide active-control liability; motion granted only as to turnover duty and case remains as to active-control claim

Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156 (1981) (articulates vessel duties to longshoremen and the basic allocation of safety responsibility to stevedores)
Howlett v. Birkdale Shipping Co., S.A., 512 U.S. 92 (1994) (describes turnover, active-control, and duty-to-intervene duties under section 905(b))
Helaire v. Mobil Oil Co., 709 F.2d 1031 (5th Cir. 1983) (reinforces that primary safety responsibility rests with the stevedore)
Kirksey v. Tonghai Maritime, 535 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2008) (turnover duty requires ordinary care and warning of latent dangers; excludes open and obvious conditions)
Manuel v. Cameron Offshore Boats, Inc., 103 F.3d 31 (5th Cir. 1997) (no-alternative exception applies only when the contractor’s only alternatives are quit or suffer employer consequences)
Pimental v. LTD Canadian Pac. Bul, 965 F.2d 13 (5th Cir. 1992) (vessel liable if it fails to protect workers from hazards in areas under its active control)
Hudson v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp., [citation="452 F. App'x 528"] (5th Cir. 2011) (factors for whether vessel retained active control: work area, turnover, control of methods)
Dow v. Oldendorff Carriers GMBH & Co., [citation="387 F. App'x 504"] (5th Cir. 2010) (discusses active-control inquiry)