Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R . 47 .5, the court has determined that this opinion should * not be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forthin 5 T H C IR . R . 47 .5.4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30553 Su m m ar y Cal endar

J AMES OF F OR D; P AT RI CIA OF F OR D, P l ai n t i f fs – A pp el l an t s v. L & W SU PP LYC O R PO R A TIO N , doi ng busi nes s as Seac oas tSuppl y, D efen da n t– A pp el l ee v. A M E R IC A N C A S U A L T YC O M P A N Y , I nt e rve no r–Appe l l ant

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f o rt he Eas t e r n Di s t r i c to f Lo ui s i ana U SD C N o. 2: 07- C V

- 8704

B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * J a m e s O ffo r da p p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n t o f s u m m a r yju d g m e n t in fav or of de fen d a n t L & W S u p p l y C orp ora ti on d/b/ aS ea coa st S u p p l y (“Se a coa st”)
o n h is n e g lig e n c e cla im
. W e a ffir m fo rth e fo llo w in gre a s o n s . United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

22, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 30553

2 BA CK GRO UND Jam es O f

f ord i nj u red his hea d an d spi n e w h en h e fel l of f t h e t rai l er bed of an ei ght ee n- w heel ed t r uck. H i s em pl oye r , W es t er n E xpr es s, had bee n hi r ed by U n i ted S tates G yp su m C orp ora ti on (“G yp su m ”) to de l ive r sh ee trock to S ea coa st. S e a c o a s t ’s e m p lo y e e s w e r e r e s p o n s ib le fo ru n lo a d in gth e s h e e t r o c kfr o m O ffo r d ’s t ruck, bu tO f

f ord ha d to f

i rstrem ove t h e t arps u sed to c o v e r th e l oad
. O f f ord
c lim b e do n t o p o f th e lo a dto re m o v e o n e o f th e ta r p s , slip p e do n aw e t p la s tic sheet, an d fel lto the groun d bel ow . A l t h ou gh h e rec eivedw orkers’com pen sati on ben ef i t s f rom hi s em pl oy e r, O ffor d su ed both G yp sum an d S eacoast f or ad di t i on aldam ages. Th e di st ri ct court en t ered sum m ary j u dg m en t i n favor of S e a c o a s ta n dG y p s u m o n a l lc l a im s . O ffo r dn o w a p p e a ls th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s gr antof s um m ar y j udgm enti n favorof Seac oas tonly. S T A N D A R D O F R E V I E W “W e rev i ew the distri ct cou rt’ s g r a n t of su m m a ryj u d gm en t de no vo .” F ah i m v. Marri otHot elS ervs . , I n c. , 551 F
. 3d344 , 348 ( 5th C i r. 200 8)

. Su m m ary j u dg m en ti s app ropri ate onl y “ i f th e pl ead i n gs, t h e di scovery and di scl osure m a terial s on f

i l e, a n dan y a ff

i d a vits sh ow tha t t h ere is n o g en u i n e issu e a s to
an y m ater i alfactan d that t h e m ovan ti s en t i t l ed to j u dg m en tas a m att er of l a w . ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 5 6 (c). DI S CU S S I ON O ff ord con ten d s th a t Se a coa st u n rea so n a b lyfa i l ed to w a rn h i m n ot to cl i m b on t op of

hi s t ruck, p rovi de h i m w i t h safet y “ fal l” eq u i pm en t , or ot h erw i se h el p h i m rem ove t h e t arp. H e al so assert s t h at S eacoast h ada du t y t o “i n f orm andr e quir e pl ai nt i f

f t o f o l l o w [ Se ac o as t ’ s ] s af e t y r ul e s , ” w hi c h pr o hibitc l i m bi ng on t op of

t rucks to rem ove t arps, an d to f ol l ow O S H A gu i del i n es. T h ou gh O f f ordN o. 09- 30553

3 m a in lyco n te n d s th a t S e a c o a s t is in d e p e n d e n tlylia b le fo rfa ilin gto p r o v id e h im
w ith a s a fe w o r k e n v ir o n m e n t, h e b e g in s b ya r g u in gth a t S e a c o a s t is v ic a r io u s ly lia b le fo r , p r e s u m a b ly , h is e m p lo y e r ’ s n e g lig e n c e . U n d er L ou i sian al a w , a p ri n ci p a lis g en era l l y n ot li a b l e for t h e torts of its in d e p e n d e n t c o n tr a c to r s . S ee, e. g. , R obert s v. Card i n al S ervs . I n c. , 266 F. 3d 368, 3 8 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ), cer t
. den i ed , 535 U
. S

. 954 , 122 S

. C t
. 135 7 ( 200 2)

. T h ere are t w o exc e pt i o ns t o t hi s r ul e . A pr i nc i pa lm ayb e l i ab l e if ( 1) i tm ai nt ai ns o p e r a tio n a l co n tr o l o v e rth e inju r yca u s in ga c t i v i t yo r(2 ) th e a c tiv ityis
u ltr a h a z a r d o u s . Id
. Th e di st r i c tc our tf ound t hatnei t herex c ept i on w as i m pl i cat ed. O n app eal , O f f ord argu es t h at th e f i rstexcepti on app l i es because “S e a c o a s t e x e r c is e s co m p le te co n tr o l o f th e lo a d in ga n du n lo a d in go f lo a d s .” N o th in gin th e re c o r din d ic a te s th a t S e a c o a s t c o n tr o lle dth e m a n n e rin
w h ic h O ffo r dw a s to co m p le te h is w o r k
. A s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t n o te d : [T] he fac t s pre se nt ed
. . . es t abl i sh onl y t hatSeac oas tor der ed a l oad of sh ee trock f

rom U
. S

. G yp su m , tha t U
. S

. G yp su m con tracted w i th W est ern E xp ress to d el iver the sheetroc k t o S eacoast, tha tW est ern E xp ress em pl oyees covered t h e l oadw i t h pl asti c t arps f or w eather pro t ec t i on, and t hatSeac oas tem pl oye es w oul d ac c eptand unl oad t he s he e t r o c k if

i t s c o ndit i o n was f

o u n ds a t i s fac t o r y upo n i ns pe c t i o n. [ S ea coa st’ s] stan d a rdpr oce d u re w a s si m p l y to p rov i d e a d eq u a te s pa c e f o runt ar pi ng, a nd o t he r w i s e r e l y upo n t he e xp e r t i s e o f t he d e liv e r yd r iv e r s to a c c o m p lis h th is ta s kin a c c o r d a n c e w ith t h e ir t rai n i n g, t h ei r em pl oyer’ s dir e c t ive s, an d an y requ i rem en t s i m posed byt he c o nt r ac t uala r r ang e m e ntb et w e e n t he s hi ppe ra nd tr a n s p o r ta tio n co m p a n y . T h e di st ri ctcourtf

u rt h er noted tha tO f f ord, “not som eon e at S eacoast, deci ded h ow to rem ove t h e tarp” an d “ t h at n o on e for ced or d i rect ed h i m to c l i m b u p on t h e l oador di d an ythi n g t h at cau sed h i m to b e on the l oad
. ” T h ese f i n di n gs are suppor t ed byt he r ec or d. The di stri ct co u rt w as t her ef or e c or r ec tt o ho l d t hatN o. 09- 30553

4 S e a c o a s t s h o u ldn o t b e h e ldv ic a r io u s lylia b le fo rO ffo r d ’ s inju r ie s . The di s t r i c tc o ur tw as a l s o r i ghtt hatO f f o r d ha s no te s t ab l i s he d a ny in d e p e n d e n t fa u lt on S e a co a st’s p a r t
. “ G e n e ra lly , th e ow n e r o r o p e ra to r o f a faci l i t y has t he dut y o f e xe r c i s i ng r e as o nab l e c ar e f o r t he s af

e t y o f pe rsons on t he pr e m i s e s a nd the duty o f no t e xp o s i ng s uc h pe r s o ns t o unr e as o nab l e r i s ks of inju ryor h a rm . ” Manni ng v . D i l lar d Dep ’ tSt o r e s , I

nc . , 753 So. 2d 163 , 165 (La. 1 99 9)

. The e xt e nt o f t hat dut y i s de t e r m i ne d by t he pa r t i c ul arfac t s o f t he in d iv id u a l c a s e . C ran e v. Exxon , 613 So. 2d 21 4, 221 (L a. C t
. A pp . 199 2)

. O f f ord
ar gue s t h at S eaco as tne gli ge nt l y fail e d t o pr o vi de hi m w i t h s af e t y e qui pm e nt andhe l p r e m o vi ng t he t ar p. I n s upp o r t , he c i t e s s e ve r alc as es i n w hi c h a p r in c ip a la s s u m e dth e d u tyto p r o v id e as a fe w o r ke n v ir o n m e n t b ya c tiv e ly
s u p e rv is in gits in d e p e n d e n t c o n tr a c to r s . I d. ; Mo o r e v . Saf

e w ay , 700 So. 2d 831 (L a. C t
. A pp . 199 6)

. F o r r eason s al readydi scussed, t h ese c ases are d is tin g u is h a b le
. T h e r e is n o e v id e n c e th a tS e a c o a s t c o n tr o lle do ra c tiv e ly sup ervi sed O f

f ord ’ s w ork. O f

f ord poi n t s t o no case i m posi n g a du t y on pr i nc i pa l s t o pr o vi de s af e t y e qui pm e nto ra s s i s t anc e t o i t s i nde pe nde nt
c o n tr a c to r s , a b s e n t s u c h as h o w in g . S ee D a v enportv. A m ax Ni ckel, I n c. , 569 S o. 2d 23 , 28 (L a. C t
. A pp . 1 990 ) (“W e a re n ota w are of a L ou i si an a st atute or j ur i s pr ude nc e w hi c h i m po s e s a dut y” o n a pr i nc i pa l t o pr o vi de a n i nde pe nde nt
c o n tr a c to r“w ith a d e q u a te fa ll p r o te c tio n .”). The O c c upa t i o nalSa fe t y and H e al t h Act s t and ar ds , ac c o r di ng t o O f f o r d,
e s t ab l i s h t hatSe ac o as tb reached aduty o f c ar e t o hi m . The duty o f o ne em pl oyer t o com pl y w i t h O S H Astand ards f or t h e ben ef

i tof an ot h er em pl oyer h as only been recogni zed bythi s c ir c uitin the m u l t i

- em pl oyer const ructi on w ork
s ite co n te x t. A m. Pe t r o le u m I n s t
. v . O SHA , 5 8 1 F .2d 4 9 3 , 5 0 9 (5 th C ir. 1 9 7 8 ).N o. 09- 30553

5 T h i s cou rt ha s reje c te d a n ysu ch du ty ou tsi d e th e m u l ti -em p l oy er w ork si te
c o n te x t. S ee Horn v. C

. L
. O sborn Con t ract i ng Co. , 591 F
. 2d318 , 321 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 7 9 ); S ou t h eastCon t ract ors, I n c. v. D u n lop , 512 F. 2d 675, 675 ( 5t h C i r . 1975) (pe rc ur i am )

. Of

f o r d fail s t o b r i e f

w he t he rs uc h aw o r ks i t e e xi s t e d he r e and t he
recor d d oes not sug gestt h at Seacoast act ed as a gen eral co n tra ct or. M ore i m por t ant l y, O f

f or d fai l s to i dent i f

y any O SH As afet y r egul at i on t hatw as po t en t i al l y vi ol ated by S eacoast. Th ese argum en t s are t h eref ore w aived
. G o o d m a n v. Ha rr is Co u n ty , 5 7 1 F .3 d3 8 8 , 3 9 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). F i n a l l y, O f

f or d ar gues t hatSeac oas thad t he dut y t o w ar n hi m notto
c l i m b o n t he t ar p. H e c i t e s s e ve r alc as es stat i ng t hat“ [i] ti s t he duty o f o ne do i ng c o ns t r uc t i o n wor k t o pr o pe r l y l ab e l , m ar k o rb ar r i c ad e pl ac e s i n t he
c o ns t r uc t i o n s i t e t hatpr e s e ntan u n reaso nab l e r i s k o f ha r m t o t ho s e i n t he
area . ” T

ol eda n o v . Se w e r age& W at e rBd. , 6 71 So

. 2 d 9 73 , 9 76 (La. Ct

. App. 1 9 9 6 ); s e e als o , e . g. , Car r v . Boh Bro s . Cons t
. Co. , 5 5 7 S o . 2 d35 6 , 35 8 (L a . C t. A p p . 19 9 0 ). N on e of the ci ted ca ses i m p ose a d u ty to w a rn on fa cts si m i l a r to t h ose ati ssue. I n deed , non e of t h ese c ases dealw i t h a p ri n ci pa l ’ s li abili t y f or i nj ur i e s s us t ai ne d b y an i nde pe nde ntco nt r ac t o r . Cons e que nt l y, t he s e c as e s do
n otal t er t h e court ’ s c on cl u si on t h at O f f ord ha s fai l ed to show t h at Seacoast
a c te dn e g lig e n tly
. CO NC L US I ON T h e di st ri ctcourtcor rect l y gran t ed su m m ary j u dg m en ti n favor of S e a c o a s to n Of

f o r d ’ s n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m. A F F I RMED.