Opinion ID: 6337432
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Louisiana Jurisprudence

Text: Louisiana courts recognize that, “at most,” a contractor owes a general duty to other independent contractors “to refrain from creating an unreasonable risk of harm or a hazardous condition.”10 For example, in 7 Id. 8 Brewer v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 35 So. 3d 230, 240 (La. 2010) (citing Mundy v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Res., 620 So. 2d 811, 813 (La. 1993)). 9 333 So. 3d 384, 395 (La. 2021), reh’g denied, No. 2021-00209, 2022 WL 262977 (La. Jan. 28, 2022). 10 Lafont v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 593 So. 2d 416, 420 (La. Ct. App. 1 Cir. 1991); see also Labit v. Palms Casino & Truck Stop, Inc., 91 So. 3d 540, 547 (La. Ct. App. 4 Cir. 2012); Cormier v. Honiron Corp., 771 So. 2d 193, 197 (La. Ct. App. 3 Cir. 2000); Washington v. Wood Group PSN, Inc., 774 F. App’x 867, 869 (5th Cir. 2019) (“As between two independent contractors who work on the same premises, each owes to the employees of 5 Case: 21-30212 Document: 00516304400 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/03/2022 No. 21-30212 Lafont v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., the plaintiff, Irvin Lafont, was employed to perform carpentry and maintenance tasks at Chevron’s Leeville shore base yard.11 The defendant, Danos, was under contract with Chevron to maintain the yard, including by dumping garbage.12 On the date of his injury, Lafont volunteered to assist Danos’s employees in dumping garbage from a smaller dumpster into a larger one.13 To complete the task, Lafont had to get into or on top of the larger dumpster, which had a greasy substance in it.14 While climbing off the dumpster, the grease caused Lafont to slip and fall to the ground.15 The Lafont court acknowledged that one independent contractor owes another the general duty to refrain from creating a hazardous condition. However, notably, the court concluded that Danos did not have “a duty to eliminate the unsafe condition” because it “had no control over the working conditions.”16 Instead, “the most that could be expected” of Danos was that it bring the issue to the attention of the controlling entity.17 Because Danos the other the same duty of exercising ordinary care as they owe to the public generally. Therefore, under Louisiana law, an independent contractor has at most the duty to refrain from creating an unreasonable risk of harm or a hazardous condition.” (quoting Lafont, 59 So. 2d at 420) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Although Washington is not “controlling precedent,” it “may be [cited as] persuasive authority.” Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4). 11 593 So. 2d at 418. 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 Id. at 418, 420. 16 Id. at 420. 17 Id. at 421. 6 Case: 21-30212 Document: 00516304400 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/03/2022 No. 21-30212 had informed Chevron, the court held that Danos discharged the duty it owed to Lafont.18 In Ortego v. State Bank & Trust Co., a minor was injured when a check writing table fell on her at a bank.19 One of the defendants, Volunteer, contracted to perform renovations at the bank, and another entity, Sampson, contracted to recover the bank’s tables with formica.20 Even though Volunteer had finished its work and left the premises by the time of the accident, the Louisiana First Circuit recognized that “the general rule that a contractor does owe an obligation to third parties to refrain from creating a hazardous condition” applied.21 Nevertheless, the court concluded that Volunteer could not be held liable because the plaintiff “failed to bear the burden of proving that the table itself was the responsibility of Volunteer or that Volunteer had left it in a dangerous position.”22 In short, Louisiana courts recognize that a contractor, like Makar, owes a duty to third-party workers, like Donahue, at a worksite. But plaintiffs have not pointed to any authority, nor have we found any, which support their theory as to the breadth of this “general duty.”23 Instead, the 18 Id. 19 316 So. 2d 826, 827 (La. Ct. App. 1 Cir. 1975). 20 Id. at 828. 21 Id. 22 Id. at 829. 23 Plaintiffs argue that the district court conflated the duty and breach of duty elements, thus depriving the jury of its fact-finding role, when it concluded that Makar did not owe specific duties to (1) alter the design of the mezzanine, (2) remove the fan, (3) place physical markers around the fan, (4) refuse to work after becoming aware of the fan, and (5) remain on the job site after finishing its work. However, the Louisiana Supreme Court holds that, even when a duty exists, that duty may be limited in scope. Roberts v. Benoit, 605 So. 2d 1032, 1045-46 (La. 1991), on reh'g (May 28, 1992). Plaintiffs fail to point to any authority (or even expert opinion) demonstrating that these specific duties exist in 7 Case: 21-30212 Document: 00516304400 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/03/2022 No. 21-30212 jurisprudence limits this duty, particularly in circumstances where the contractor lacks control or responsibility over the worksite at the time of the injury.24