1 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-60720

GEORGIA CASUALTY AND SURETY CO., as Subrogee

of Odom Indus., Inc.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

SANDOZ AGRO, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

* * * * * * *

MARYLAND CASUALTY CO., as Subrogee of Odom

Indus., Inc.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

SANDOZ AGRO, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(4:95-CV-94LN)

July 18, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Plaintiffs-Appellants, Georgia Casualty and Surety Company
2

and Maryland Casualty Company, as subrogees of Odom Industries,

Inc. (“Odom”), appeal the district court’s order of September 19,

1996, granting a summary judgment motion in favor of DefendantAppellee Sandoz Agro, Inc. (“Sandoz”). Appellants also contest

the district court’s affirmance of sanctions imposed by a

magistrate judge.

In 1992, Odom entered into a contractual relationship with

Sandoz to “formulate” certain chemicals manufactured by Sandoz. 

As a formulator, Odom’s responsibility was to process and blend

raw chemicals provided by Sandoz and thereby create a product for

commercial use. One of these chemicals was prodiamine, a

hazardous compound used to produce herbicides. The contract

executed by the parties stated that the “Contractor shall

formulate, blend or package Product or repackage Chemical in

accordance with Sandoz’ [sic] directions.”

On December 19, 1992, an accident occurred at Odom’s

facilities while processing prodiamine which resulted in $1.2

million in damages. Appellants, as subrogees of Odom, brought

suit against Sandoz. They urge that they are entitled to relief

due to Sandoz’s negligence in failing to institute adequate

safety measures at Odom’s plant. Specifically, the appellants

claim that Sandoz was negligent in failing to insist that Odom

use an “inerting system,” designed to prevent the type of

explosion that the appellants assert occurred. 
3

The district court ruled, inter alia, that Sandoz owed no

affirmative duty to Odom that would require Sandoz to mandate all

necessary safety precautions in the processing of Sandoz’s

products. The district court noted the language in the contract

related to “formulat[ing] . . . in accordance” with Sandoz’s

directions and determined that

there simply is no likelihood that the contracting parties

could have intended that Sandoz, on the strength of nothing

more than such general language [in the contract], could

have required that Odom, whose processing facilities it had

thoroughly investigated before signing the contract, make

the significant expenditure of time and money that

installation of such a system would have necessitated.

(footnote omitted).

The court further held that even if the contract could be

construed to find that Sandoz had the authority to require an

inerting system, it had no duty to do so. We agree with the

conclusion of the district court and find that the appellants do

not point to any evidence which would compel the opposite result.

Additionally, the appellants dispute the district court’s

affirmance of a $1000 sanction ordered by a magistrate judge for

failing to comply with discovery rules. Because we find no abuse

of discretion, we reject the appellants’ arguments.

We find no error in the district court’s order of September

19, and thus we AFFIRM.