Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20286/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20286-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

15-20286

Summary Calendar

JERRY L. FRANKS, SR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

HILCORP ALASKA, LLC,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CV-2975

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hilcorp Alaska, LLC conducted oil exploration and drilling operations 

from its platform in the territorial waters of Alaska. Hilcorp as principal 

contracted with Williams-Southern to perform specialized services on the 

platform. In early July 2012, Hilcorp observed Williams-Southern employees 

lean a ladder against a shipment container. Hilcorp informed WilliamsSouthern this practice was unacceptable, and Williams-Southern removed the 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 9, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20286 Document: 00513264056 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/09/2015
No. 15-20286

2

ladder. Then in late July 2012, plaintiff Jerry Franks Sr. an employee of

Williams-Southern leaned a ladder against the container, fell, and injured 

himself. Franks brought suit against Hilcorp alleging both negligence and 

premises liability.

The district court’s opinion is well-reasoned and has ample support. As 

principal, Hilcorp was not responsible for supervising the details of the 

independent contractor’s work.1 By instructing a Williams-Southern employee 

on a previous occasion about a ladder, Hilcorp did not retain control over the 

work.2 Moreover the facts of the accident belie any premises liability claim—

the transitory fault of the sub-contractor and its employees do not give rise to 

a premises suit.3 Accordingly, we AFFIRM essentially for the reasons given by 

the district court.

 

1 See Petranovich v. Matanuska Elec. Ass’n, 22 P.3d 451, 454 (Alaska 2001).

2 Id.

3 See Moloso v. State, 644 P.2d 205, 219 (Alaska 1982) (explaining any premises 

liability was extinguished by giving notice of danger to contractor).

 Case: 15-20286 Document: 00513264056 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/09/2015