Opinion
Civil Action No: 99-1139 Section: "D" (3)
March 20, 2002
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the court is the "Motion for Summary Judgment" filed by Defendant, Lowe of f shore, Inc. (Lowe). Plaintiff, Keith Parker, filed a memorandum in opposition. The motion, set for hearing on Wednesday, March 20, 2002, is before the court on briefs, without oral argument.
Having reviewed the memoranda of counsel and the applicable law, the court finds that there are no genuine issues of material fact and Lowe is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In this matter, Plaintiff alleges that while working as a welder for Dynamic Industries, he was injured on a production platform (owned or operated by SOCO), when the rotor wash from a helicopter (owned and operated by Petroleum Helicopters, Inc.) descending onto the heliport of the platform blew the windbreak which Plaintiff was holding.
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1331 et seq., extends the law of the adjacent state, which becomes the law of the United States, to actions arising from injuries on outer continental shelf platforms. In Plaintiff's original Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the subject incident occurred on the outer continental shelf adjacent to Louisiana. But in his Fourth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Alabama law should apply. As discussed in the text infra, whether this case is analyzed under Louisiana or Alabama law, the court's decision is the same.
Plaintiff initially alleged that his injuries were caused by the negligence of SOCO and Petroleum Helicopters, and then in his Fourth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff joined Lowe as a defendant. As to Lowe, Plaintiff alleges that:
Upon information and belief, Lowe Offshore, Inc. was the employer of David Cestia, the company man on the platform at the time of the accident. Plaintiffs allege that Lowe Offshore, Inc. is liable for the negligence of its employee, David Cestia.
( See Fourth Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 131).
The court finds that Lowe is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because Plaintiff has failed to establish, under Louisiana or Alabama law, any legal duty owed by Lowe (and Cestia) to him that was breached. Lowe did not own or have custody of the subject platform, did not employ Plaintiff, and had no contractual relationship with Plaintiff's employer, Dynamic. Further, while Lowe (and Cestia) had the right to check the progress and quality of Dynamic's work, they did not actually supervise the methods used by Dynamic (and Plaintiff) to accomplish their work. Further, Dynamic chose the work method used, including the use of the subject windbreak and instructed its employees on how to perform their work.
Compare Verdin v. Kerr McGee Corp., 1997 WL 39308 (E.D.La. 1997) (Berrigan, J.) (no legal duty between two independent contractors); and Joyner v. Ensco Offshore Co., 2001 WL 118599 (E.D.La. 2001 (Duval, J.) (no legal duty between two independent contractors, and even if there was a duty, there was no breach of that duty).
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that the "Motion for Summary Judgment" filed by Defendant, Lowe of f shore, Inc., be and is hereby GRANTED, dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Lowe Offshore, Inc.