Richardson v. Petco Petroleum Corporation
4:11-cv-00128
S.D. Miss.Dec 12, 2012Background
- Richardson, a roustabout for RK Services, was injured repairing hot water equipment at Petco’s oil well.
- Plaintiff sues Petco for negligence and premises liability, arguing Petco’s control created a duty of care.
- Petco contends Richardson was an independent contractor with no duty owed by Petco, or, alternatively, that both parties knew of the dangers.
- Evidence shows disputed control: McClain (RK owner) says he directed the repair, while Hudson (Petco pump) directed the work in some accounts.
- The court finds material disputes about who controlled the work, and whether RK Services functioned as an independent contractor.
- The court grants summary judgment on the warning duty but denies it on the premises safety duty, leaving issues for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Richardson was an employee or independent contractor | Richardson treated as employee; RK control evidence suggests employee status | Richardson and RK were independent contractors under Petco’s control | Jury question; factual disputes require trial |
| Duty to warn under premises liability | Petco failed to warn about dangers; warning required | Workers were aware of dangers; warning unnecessary | Summary judgment for Petco on warning duty |
| Duty to keep premises reasonably safe | Petco chose a risky vacuum procedure; should have been safer | Reasonableness disputed; jury should decide | Material fact question for jury; duty to keep premises reasonably safe remains |
Key Cases Cited
- Coho Resources, Inc. v. McCarthy, 829 So. 2d 1 (Miss. 2002) (owner liability for independent contractor’s workers if owner controls work)
- Richardson v. APAC-Mississippi, Inc., 631 So. 2d 143 (Miss. 1994) (tests for independent contractor status; control is central)
- Magee v. Transco. Gas Pipe Line Corp., 551 So. 2d 182 (Miss. 1989) (contract terms and tools ownership as factors for contractor status)
- Richardson v. APAC-Mississippi, Inc., 631 So. 2d 143 (Miss. 1994) (traditional factors for determining independent contractor status)
- McKee v. Brimmer, 39 F.3d 94 (5th Cir. 1994) (employer control and supervision can defeat independent contractor label)
- Reed v. D&D Drilling & Exploration, Inc., 27 So. 3d 414 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (premises liability vs. other theories with knowledge of presence)
- Maddox v. Townsend and Sons, Inc., 639 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2011) (reasonableness central to owner’s invitee obligations)