going i'm referring to whether i can be innovative whether wreck was on premises and specifically you're going to to district court opinions that have very little analysis about this question i'm actually referring to for district court decisions as well ways i can say that your honor because grogan was not at all troubled by the fact that the only term used in its contract was invitee and it applied it to a contractor just like wrecked it didn't the law had developed so much that it didn't need the word sub contractor contractors the appellee argue should be there the dish network in the growing opinion didn't they stipulate that it was an inviting eventually they did well on the lower court when it came to this court that they did right i think that was in rate or was your honor i don't think they stipulating grogan's now i think it was in i think that was door one that was a stipulation in grogan the district court in this court found that invitee was broad enough based on the  decisions to include subcontractors and contractors and there's a long line of case was that was it was grogan similar to this where you're in a body of water and you're claiming to be an invitee it was your honor all of these cases involve it's very common for the offshore industry for people to move between areas and therefore why i believe the courts have defined the work site has to be broader than just a vessel or platform all right now in your claim that this is the premises for the i'm sure there was also want to regulate tory matters for granting the right to be out there in the gulf laying pipe or whatever waters and so if there are some permit or something saying best so has the right to work from latitude x to latitude y and longitude a the  that it was laying pipe what is that but there's nothing in the summary judgment record saying that baseball was allowed to work in this specific area no your honor but i think it's clear that it was doing that it was all there's no question it was doing that i can go out and speed my automobile that doesn't mean i can do it other than the fact i do it i'm not entitle to do so i just want to make sure there's nothing in the summary judgment record that in any way designates a certain part of the gulf of mexico as in effect being a longing to be so while it's laying pipe there is not that i miss the time which is one of the reasons we believe it was inappropriate for the district court to grant dawn's motion for someone did you move under ro fifty six to continue the summary judgment decision until you can supplement the record your honor we took this appeal because we believe the evidence is adequate to show that the so did have control over the area where the mistake was and those question to you if you didn't ask the district court to delay ruling on summary judgment till you could provide further evidence on the roof fifty six i believe it's elf we did not run it we would not seek reconsideration because we believe the evidence is sufficient agree with you would you not reconsideration that asking the court to delay the ruling on the summary judgment motion until you provide for their opening you didn't request that we didn't and nor did the district court ask for further evidence or deny the motions for summ judgment when does the district court have to ask them for their evidence on time or judgment by saying we think the district court could have just found there were issues of fact or more discovery need to be done which is why we think the court erred in granting dollars motion for summary judgment if there was an issue about control the courts or a lot of the parties conduct or discovery on that we don't think there's an issue of control because the biso barge is swinging a crane and a basket full of personnel over a very limited area of the gulf of mexico and sending it out to the back deck of the mist chain which clearly shows under grogan where this court held that the premises and the occupancy is the same extent of control a b so control this area of the gulf of mexico and control the you didn't control the miss chain in this area the gulf of mexico it never could have boomed its crane over the place personnel in the basket of the miss jane and caused this accident allegedly so if control is truly and we believe grogan holds that  extensive with the premises then this is the premises obese he said had pipeline the water they had divers in the water they have sludge in the water they were operating in a defined area that they refer to as the eugene i want eighty seven area they invited wreck into this area by summoning the vessel to come alongside the the so mighty chief and they moved personnel by of the so crane on to the miss chain which we believe more than is adequate to satisfy the broken test for occupancy and therefore premises the other district court cases i refer to your honor though to go through in reno judge clement of this court when she was still in the district court was addressed these exact same two issues who is in a of the pyramid is the invite whore and anyone that invites to do this work the courts have consistently held to be invitee they've given a very broad scope as judge found noted in acts or in the alex case and there's no get there but there's no doubt that the so invited kilgore which in turn invited wrecked and therefore wrecked was at the doing the business of biso for the mutual benefit which is the lot of part of the test so and for the mutual benefit to be so in wreck one part that i'd like to illustrate to the court is looking at the premises which i believe judge barksdale you're most concerned about is judge wisdoms opinion in the bank's fee hike case which admittedly is always in a state court case but is the foundation of where the courts look to define premises and if that judge wisdom looked at the restatement of torts and said the area of limitation will of course vary with the circumstances of case it extends the entrance of the property into the safe exit after the purpose of the business concluded it extends to all parts of the premises to which the purpose may reasonably be expected to take the invitee we would argue that for regular crane to be lowered over the back deck of the miss chain which is exactly what's happening here contrary to what the appellant argument appellee argues this chain is never reasonably expected to come aboard the mighty chief that's that's a malaysian vessels come alongside of one another and therefore exchange goods and cargo and personnel that is in effect coming onto the premises that is involved here and is very consistent with the way the courts have been what is gulf of mexico we have had very steep dangerous waves are you saying that be so can control that are you saying will be so should abused its crying but i think this court has said that repeatedly a personal basket transfers that it's a dual obligation of the vessel and the platform owner to control whether or not a personal basket transfer takes place that's different from controlling whether personal basket transfer takes place and whether they control the premises i  don't think it is at all different drama if you are controlling the operation you are controlling the area of the operation when this case includes the immediate area around the mighty chief to do the pet personal basket transfer so you would control that area into terming whether or not it is safe to do a personal basket transfer safe that the distance of the vessels are safely apart from each other and the extent of the crane can mary jane or whatever the name of the vessel and miss jane up in the air and cause this problem is that being controlled by a bee so well it it certainly is the area of control i don't think the cell has to control the waves it just has to everything again tore i don't agree with it you're on it i'm just asking the question to your council because you're you're at least as far as i see it you're presenting a very novel my argument with all due respect i don't think we are your honor it is  consistent with the district court's decisions that define premises in terms of the work site and that is particularly true in the clayton williams case where the court looked at the oil company inviting the parker rig onto the work site suite lakefield and said that was the premises where the injury occurred again in re larry there were one case the work site was so apparent to be the defined the term arising out of the work very broadly and in this case it does it doesn't matter what you're saying it jason isn't is a legal term that the appellee relies on that i don't think is a pleasurable here alongside would be the better term for me i think a vessel where in the maritime context as as this court's clearly stated that the reasonable area that the and that the purpose may reasonably expect to take the invitee for a vessel alongside has to be that reasonable place it's also again consistent with in grass in the grass which this court held in banks versus hyatt is included within the definition of premises ok it's been my second question is if is it your position that there is a fact issue on whether the area around the mighty chief is the premises control but be said or is it your position that we should hold this is a matter of law i believe we submitted sufficient evidence that as a matter of law you can hold that the premises be so controlled included the area around the mighty chief to the extent of the crane boom you know at least to put a personal best on the back of machine i think that is easy place to reach if your honour's don't agree with that then i think the area of control the premises as judge bork still asked about what the federal government defined as the premises and a lot of the sort of work in would be an issue of fact that was not fully developed at the time and would weigh against the district court having granted dawn's motion for summary judgment and would should require this court to reverse that part of the district court's decision thank you reasonable care to ensure that the premises are safe for the protection of the invitee under the novel theory that record dances here rejected appropriately the premises is the gulf of mexico or at least some segment of the gulf of mexico what that would mean is that these as in by tor would have an obligation to ensure that the gulf of mexico was safe in order to prevent injury to wreck this court has never made such of such a finding grogan as well as in all of this court's controlling cases it was an undisputed given that the person literally plaintiff was the invitee the question these cases was always who is the invite or is it the owner of contractors and subcontractors who go to work at the project in these waters then that it isn't it would become difficult or perhaps impossible certainly a case like this to decide that i can tr going to protect the base of family invitees in that sense but not contractors and subcontractors because regardless of whether you include the terms contractors and subcontractors an indemnity clause they are included because they are necessarily a as a recognised meeting and judge our right to address your concern other way if i may wreck is not an invitee because in order for it to be an invitee the court must conclude that the gulf of mexico w were but there's always been the thought that when the transfers coming over the ocean but that you're in new york let me that's kind of just spin and it's never been argued this way it's just been thought that they controlled the operation and people thought because the operations underway here was a pipeline operation this is all undisputed which entailed workers on the sea floor working on pipelines and then of course their activities on the piece of pipeline barge what rick is doing conflating this to draw in all the waters above the sea floor we have no idea whether it's directly above the pipes being worked on or not there's no evidence of that and and truly talking about the personal basket transfer from the piece of barge to the wreck vessel leading to an injury on the deck of rex vessel and then describe  yet wrapping in as the premises the surrounding waters of the gulf of mexico this accident happened essentially occurred on the deck of the wreck vessel at the conclusion of this personnel basket  not arguing that the premises here was it's vessel in this chain because that would lead to the absurd proposition that wreck was invitee on his own vessel wreck doesn't make that argument record argues that the gulf of mexico was the premises this court's ruling in grogan and the other relevant authorities was mr knox the person into victim always the case so then we get to the question who's the invite or that's the foreigner question and as this court instructed in in authorities stand remotely for the pop musician that wrecked becomes an inviting and it seems a bit silly to suggest that rock is an invitee on its own vessel the only authority for that which also requires a determination that the gulf of mexico has the premises which means that diesel has to control the gulf of mexico and make sure it's safe for wreck that is a fairly radical notion that has no grounding in any case ever decided by the squire does it have to do i can i understand that that's a radical notion but why isn't what really it has to control its operations to make sure that when the if you have a premises that says it's rickety you have to make sure that you do your is only in the times when the premises is least rickety if you have a premises that is dark some of the time you have to do it only in the light in that you have that so it's not because you're controlling the weather the premisses is light or dark but you're controlling the operations that take place on the premises pressure or if i understand you correctly implicit in your honest point is that the premises in order for premises to be rickety assume you are just describing the gulf of mexico as waters assuming describing some real property on the goal for a hotel or how i would ever the waters are and maybe unpredictable maybe predictable but but because streams sometimes predictably extreme so they're not really they're controlling their operations in the zone when the water's the most calm they're only doing things when it's call because they know that sometimes it's not for that my honor i look and say is that i'm not aware of any farty and we certainly looked for the proposition that because an invite or invitee relationship an oilfield contracting company has an obligation as invited to war to ensure sa waters for the benefit of contractors of contractors rather could be some argument made but not on the basis of the light is that there searing the operations only take place when the waters are say or the safest they can that is a bit different from the obligation by poor hands which is to keep the the the premises safe and that would entail keeping the gulf of mexico safe which i think it harkens back to to judge parks to question what if a roadway flow comes through is that an obligation of diesel because the so was the occupier of the premises responsible to maintain safe premises that is getting far afield from any case law this court has ever handed down and it would have very it would have it's difficult to contemplate the ramifications that might flow from say after novel discussion that's the only argument they're making that these premises belonged to be so correct not to be so it was negligent to wear operated it's grain that the premises belong to be so right just like the hotel belongs to the highe brief cases addressing you know there is no problem for a number of beyond the area of control and that is why we cited the cases that we did in our in our brief for that proposition because here it's clear out undisputed that where was the work occurring was occurring on the sea floor where the pipeline was and it was occurring on vessels and or they actually occur on a vessel on the deck of the miss jane  of those places or the place that wreck asked this court to define is the premises instead as this court defined as the premises the surrounding waters of the gulf of mexico to some extent because re contemplate what could spin from such a determination but suffice it to say it is contrary to an established body of invitee invite torah law and this law has been around for a very long in the sense of some ability to protect from risks inherent in the waters is there anything in the summary judgment record at this point as to how the accident occurred and how this mr transfer was being completed the crane from the biso barge allowed or in some fashion the transfer of acid slammed on to the honor again that the treatment was given fairly short shrift there's no discussion of occupancy what it means to be an occupier no discussion of the control and whatsoever which is absolutely integral to the idea of invitee status although it's certainly true that and invitee that it contractor a subcontractor can be an invitee i do believe that the judge zany was correct when he noted here that it's awkward in the context of this under the control of a contract and parties illustrated by status and just as importantly under this court's precedents to the extent they are analogous and apply all they do is lead to the conclusion that perhaps the so  long standing body of contractual maritime law that clearly gives indent and then the t a broad scope and that body of law was in existence when this contract was executed it started with blanks and the re no decision was there in the same year this contract was signed jaffer decided the clayton williams case all three of those decisions gave a very broad scope to the word invitee and therefore the parties to this contract were well aware that this court of the courts including the first circuit were broadly defining the term as that body of law developed through the late to thousands to grogan in two thousand and sixteen the courts continue to give broad scopes of the defining invitee and defining the premises to include the work site we are not asking this court to say that the gulf of mexico is the premises for this accident that's not the facts of this case and it's not the facts we put in the record to judge saini miss jane was right alongside working with the mighty chief to transfer an injured personnel clearly that area of water is within not in the summary judgment record but your honor what i would argue is that whatever the distance of the crane boom is to access a vessel is within the scope of the work site because naturally that you make that argument  around the vessel divers under the vessel the pipeline coming from the vessel and the act of offloading personnel on to the basket again if there's issues of fact on that that would have been a reason for the district court to deny both motions for summary judgment and ask the parties to develop the record further and come back but we don't believe that that the district court in a pretty tough position to time and to come up with the issues and then have you brief them instead of you following for a summary judgment or defending against summary judgment and providing the evidence you think is necessary i'm stating the issues of the district court ruled it doesn't go out looking for issues where your honor i'm not asking you just a court to look at the issues we believe the facts were sufficient to establish that in the gen space in some way and that as we grow can says i may not own the space you may be able to remove me from the space but while i'm here working in this space i'd exert control over it and that is all the growth in court asked for premises because it is a broad definition that allows the indemnity to have a broad scope as is a lot of the gentleman time law and that is consistent with the way the case was developed on the premises and that's where it gets so pretty again you're on i think it's it's not slippery if you just look at control and the at and the facts of this accident are not the whole gulf of mexico it is a very defined during the gulf of mexico at the so is actually factually controlling at the time of the accident which is why we believe we were in invitee at the time and entitle to indemnity i would again and in the few seconds i have left let me ask you if i'm standing out in the middle of street the and i tell a friend to take a moment over willis walk across the street if my friend is hit by a tort law is duties of it and i see your honor going in that direction i think it's a natural direction to go in but the courts caution to not do that if you don't have to in this case you don't have to look to the duties one because the duty   a big wave coming up and that was not predicted it wasn't like a hurricane and been forecasts been it would be under tour and it would be reasonable care and that would have been reasonable to let the bathtub transfer go and it's just an end terrible tragedy but not precisely i think when you look at the wave questions that we've been asked those are tort questions and the control in those tort questions are going to be reasonable care i'm asking the court to just look at premises from a contractual say i have two questions related to that what do you say to the argument that that makes you the invite not you that your client be in the pipe playing work was going on and we were real and we were there so there is no ambiguity or on clarity there we don't have to get to whether or not our vessel was the premises and therefore we're invited onto our premises our vessel came onto the premises where be so was working what is and what is in the summary judgment record as to how it is that the miss jane came alongside the mighty cheap do we have any transcript of radio communication do anything about we can't get specific operation but is there anything in the summary judgment record saying a commits a radio communication or something from the mighty chief to the miss jane saying we can't get a helicopter here you need to come alongside not the work records say that the miss chain was there to take personnel to another platform we know later that a helicopter had to be used but that isn't that's remote from this incident but this all of the work records indicate  and i think that would be the more appropriate course of action and overall in those bodies of cases that are based on their own facts in place i think this case is unique in that we did try to bring this issue up quickly because we thought it was well