Opinion ID: 496724
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Liability of CNG

Text: 10 The Bartholomews brought this negligence suit against CNG, asserting that CNG was negligent (1) in ordering Bartholomew's employer, Booker, to engage in an unsafe work practice and (2) in contracting with Booker for an inadequate number of floor hands to operate the equipment safely. In defense, CNG argues that as a principal which exercised no operational control over its independent contractor, Booker, CNG was insulated from liability in this case. Because we find that some evidence exists to support a finding by the jury that CNG expressly authorized an unsafe work practice on the platform, we reject CNG's arguments and affirm the district court's judgment without addressing the claim that CNG was negligent in failing to contract for adequate personnel. 11 It is well established that a principal is not liable for the activities of an independent contractor committed in the course of performing its duties under the contract. Hawkins v. Evans Cooperage Co., 766 F.2d 904, 906 (5th Cir.1985); Wallace v. Oceaneering Int'l, 727 F.2d 427, 437 (5th Cir.1984); Moser v. Texas Trailer Corp., 623 F.2d 1006, 1014-15 (5th Cir.1980). However, two notable exceptions exist to this general rule. First, a principal may not escape liability arising out of ultrahazardous activities which are contracted out to an independent contractor. Second, and of importance to the instant case, a principal is liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he exercises operational control over those acts or expressly or impliedly authorizes an unsafe practice. Hawkins, 766 F.2d at 906; Wallace, 727 F.2d at 437; Williams v. Gervais F. Favrot Co., 499 So.2d 623, 625 (La.App.1986), writ denied, 503 So.2d 19 (La.1987); Ewell v. Petro Processors of Louisiana, Inc., 364 So.2d 604, 606-07 (La.App.1978), writ denied, 366 So.2d 575 (La.1979). 12 Where an available safe method, which includes the taking of adequate precautions, will render it at least ordinarily safe, and the work is done in an unsafe manner, the employer will be liable if he has expressly or impliedly authorized the particular manner which will render the work unsafe, and not otherwise. 13 Ewell, 364 So.2d at 607 (quoting Perkowski, The Employer and the Torts of His Independent Contractor in Louisiana, 21 Tul.L.Rev. 619, 627 (1947)). 14 Having set forth the general rule and its exceptions, we must now determine the appropriate standard of review to utilize in reviewing the jury's findings. As previously noted, CNG failed to move for a directed verdict or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict at the trial level. This Court has consistently held that it will not review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury finding in the absence of a directed verdict or motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Smith v. Trans-World Drilling Co., 772 F.2d 157, 160 (5th Cir.1985); Quinn v. Southwest Wood Products, Inc., 597 F.2d 1018, 1024 (5th Cir.1979); Coughlin v. Capitol Cement Co., 571 F.2d 290, 297 (5th Cir.1978); Fugitt v. Jones, 549 F.2d 1001, 1004 (5th Cir.1977). Accordingly, our evidentiary inquiry is limited to whether there was any evidence to support the jury's verdict, irrespective of its sufficiency, or whether plain error was committed which, if not noticed, would result in a 'manifest miscarriage of justice.'  Coughlin, 571 F.2d at 297 (emphasis in original). 15 In finding that the appropriate standard of review is whether there was any evidence to support the jury's finding, we reject CNG's assertion that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The jury expressly found that CNG's negligence was a cause in fact of the injury suffered by Bartholomew on the offshore platform. Thus, the inquiry becomes whether there was any evidence that CNG exercised operational control over its independent contractor, Booker, or expressly or impliedly authorized the unsafe practice which caused Bartholomew's injuries. 16 Bartholomew testified at trial that the company man, J.T. Madison, expressly told the driller, Perry Gill, not to wash the rig floor until after the operation was completed. Bartholomew also testified that the driller was fearful for his job. As a floor hand, Bartholomew took his orders directly from the driller. Bartholomew's testimony was not directly contradicted by any of CNG's witnesses. In fact, the Booker tool pusher testified that he had heard of some company men ordering the driller to speed up the operations and not to wash down the rig. Emmett Farrar, the other company man for CNG, who was independently employed, testified that he did not know whether or not Madison had ever issued such an order to the driller. Thus, the question was one of Bartholomew's credibility. The jury was entitled to make that credibility determination and did so. On the record before us, we conclude that some evidence supported a finding by the jury that CNG, through its representative on the rig, J.T. Madison, expressly authorized the unsafe practice of failing to wash down the rig floor which eventually caused Bartholomew's accident. 17 It is submitted by CNG that because Madison possibly gave his order not to wash down the floor two days prior to the accident, CNG was not exercising operational control at the time of the accident and therefore was not liable. Without determining who the company man was at the time of the accident, we conclude that whether Madison was on duty at the time of the accident or whether he gave the order two days prior to the accident is not dispositive. An employee does not stop obeying his employer's orders merely because the employer is no longer present. It is not unrealistic to expect the driller, as well as the floor hands, to continue to conduct operations without washing down the floor, in light of Madison's previous order to do so. Since there was some evidence to support a finding by the jury that CNG expressly authorized an unsafe work practice, we affirm the district court's judgment.