Louisiana Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment to Platform Operator in Case Filed by Drilling Services Contractor’s Injured Worker

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted summary judgment to the owner of a fixed tower oil platform that was sued by an injured worker employed by a drilling services contractor.  The worker suffered injuries while performing the removal of a piece of equipment in order to conduct wireline operations.  When the worker arrived at the equipment needing to be removed, he determined it was too heavy to manually lift because it exceeded his employer’s work rule that any objects in excess of 50 pounds must be moved by machinery or crane.  Upon radioing his supervisor (also an employee of the drilling services contractor), he allegedly was instructed to “manhandle” the equipment to remove it.  Another worker that was accompanying the soon-to-be injured worker took it upon himself to lift the equipment and then passed it to the worker in question, who dropped the equipment and ruptured an air hose, before picking up and again dropping the equipment, while sustaining alleged back injuries.

The worker sued the platform owner alleging negligent failure to exercise reasonable care over his safety, failure to eliminate hazardous and unsafe conditions, negligent operation of the platform, and failure to adequately train and supervise its employees and contracted third parties, and other claims.  The court examined the relationship between the platform owner and the drilling services contractor (the worker’s employer) and concluded that the platform owner did not retain operational control over the contractor’s employees absent an express or implied order to the contractor to engage in an unsafe work practice leading to an injury, which was not alleged in the case.  The platform owner’s contract with the drilling services contractor explicitly stated that the platform owner had no authority to supervise the contractor and that the contractor was responsible for “training its employees in safe working practices and procedures” and “shall coordinate all safety, health, and environmental activities for the job(s) for which Contractor is responsible.”  The presence of the company man (the platform owner’s employee on the rig) at a safety meeting and his failure to intervene when an incorrect job safety analysis was issued for the task was not enough to prove the platform owner’s negligence.  In granting summary judgment to the platform owner, the court explained that the worker failed to identify any evidence that the owner ever specifically involved itself in the safety of the operation in which the worker was injured other than acting as a passive observer.