Opinion ID: 521559
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: shell's liability under article 2317

Text: 6 We turn first to Shell's liability under Louisiana Civil Code Art. 2317. 1 Shell would liken its status in this case to that of the defendant in Stine v. Creel, 417 So.2d 1243 (La.App.1982), which, in attempting to have its roof repaired, was sued by a workman who negligently fell through the roof. As the Louisiana court held: 7 ... RCC 2317 gives Stine no relief. Clearly Crown Zellerbach had custody of the warehouse. But the roof of the building, under the facts of this case, does not constitute a defective thing that caused injury to Stine. Again, it was not the roof that caused the injury--it was the manner about which Stine sought to remove it that caused the injury. 417 So.2d at 1246. 8 Stine is distinguishable. There, the plaintiff was injured, at least in part, by the very defect that he had been hired to repair. In this case, there was disputed testimony as to whether the plywood had been placed over the hole by L & L to suit its purposes or by Shell as a part of structural repairs to the platform. 2 Because of this conflict, the jury was entitled to decide that Shell or a contractor other than L & L had placed unmarked, non-secured plywood over that hole in the grating. Reed, consequently, was not injured by the dangerously defective condition that L & L had been hired to repair, nor was he injured by any act of L & L in furtherance of its repair work. 9 Our recent decision in Boutwell v. Chevron, 864 F.2d 406 (5th Cir.1988), reinforces this conclusion. In Boutwell, summary judgment was affirmed for Chevron, the platform owner, on a claim by a contractor's employee who tripped and fell through an un-barricaded hole. There, however, the evidence showed that the worker's employer had cut the hole in the platform to further its operations. We found, based on Stine, that Art. 2317 would not support liability. 10 As Stine does not justify a judgment n.o.v. for Shell, we likewise see no basis to award a new trial on this issue. The jury was faced with a substantial evidentiary conflict, and we cannot say that a new trial is required to verify their decision.