Richard Skinner v. Schlumberger Technology Corp.
655 F. App'x 188
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Richard Skinner, hired by Schlumberger (Coil Tubing Services), performed coiled tubing work onshore, on platforms, and aboard vessels; he was injured while attempting to untangle a hydraulic hose on a gangway between a platform and the lift boat L/B BULL SHARK.
- EPL hired Schlumberger to perform tool fishing on the Outer Continental Shelf and hired Hercules to provide the lift boat; Greene’s Energy provided a company man via independent contractor.
- Skinner sued in Louisiana state court alleging general maritime negligence and Jones Act seaman status; Schlumberger removed the case to federal court asserting diversity, OCSLA, and fraudulent joinder (fraudulent seaman pleading).
- The district court denied remand and granted summary judgment for Schlumberger, EPL, Hercules, Greene’s Energy, and employee Paul Gueho; Guidroz was dismissed separately.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit considered (1) whether remand was required because Skinner was a Jones Act seaman, and (2) whether summary judgment was proper for all defendants on negligence and Jones Act claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remand required because Skinner is a Jones Act seaman | Skinner argued he met Jones Act seaman status (substantial connection to vessel/fleet; time aboard counts) | Defendants argued Skinner lacked the necessary substantial connection and removal was proper | Held: Skinner is not a seaman under Chandris; remand denial affirmed |
| Whether Skinner met Chandris temporal/nexus prong (30% rule) | Skinner claimed his vessel/platform/varying assignments and onshore prep time should count toward substantial time afloat | Defendants showed records (daily/hourly summaries) placing time aboard under ~30% and same job duties throughout | Held: Time aboard was insufficient (below ~30%); no seaman status |
| Whether EPL/Greene’s Energy owed a duty or breached it (maritime negligence) | Skinner alleged they knew of excessive hours/unsafe conditions and failed to remedy | Defendants argued they were principals who hired independent contractors and exercised no operational control over Schlumberger’s work | Held: No evidence of operational control or breach; summary judgment for EPL and Greene’s Energy affirmed |
| Whether Hercules/Gueho breached duty causing injury | Skinner claimed negligence by lift-boat operator/owner | Defendants argued Skinner acted unilaterally and performed an unsafe act without direction | Held: Any duty did not cover risk of Skinner’s voluntary unsafe action; summary judgment for Hercules and Gueho affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (establishes two-prong Jones Act seaman test: contribution to vessel function and substantial connection in duration and nature)
- Alexander v. Express Energy Servs. Operating, LP, 784 F.3d 1032 (platform/onshore work not automatically sufficient to establish Jones Act seaman status)
- Canal Barge Co. v. Torco Oil Co., 220 F.3d 370 (elements of maritime negligence: duty, breach, injury, causation)
- Wilkins v. P.M.B. Sys. Eng’g, Inc., 741 F.2d 795 (principal who hires independent contractors and lacks operational control generally owes no duty to discover/remove contractor-created hazards)
- Fruge v. Parker Drilling Co., 337 F.3d 558 (presence of a company man alone does not establish operational control)
- Feist v. La., Dep’t of Justice, Office of the Att’y Gen., 730 F.3d 450 (summary judgment de novo review standard)
- Carpenter v. Wichita Falls Indep. Sch. Dist., 44 F.3d 362 (remand motion denial reviewed de novo)