Opinion ID: 465192
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims against Baker Marine

Text: 17 In his appeal of the judgment in favor of Baker, Richendollar complains of the jury charge relative to the determination of his status as an invitee or licensee in the Baker shipyards, and of the adequacy of the evidence on that issue and on the question of Baker's negligence. Finding no merit in any assignment of error, we affirm the judgment as to Baker. 18 Richendollar contended at trial that he was an invitee on Baker's premises and that Baker was negligent in failing to provide him a safe place to work. Baker countered that Richendollar was using a basket which it neither owned nor controlled and, as to the basket, was therefore merely a licensee. Consistent with that status, Baker maintains that its only obligation was to avoid injuring Richendollar through willful or wanton conduct. The trial court submitted interrogatories to the jury about Baker's ownership or control of the work basket, and asked whether Richendollar was Baker's invitee or licensee with respect thereto. The jury responded that Baker neither owned nor possessed the basket and that Richendollar was a licensee. The judge instructed the jury on Texas law respecting invitees and licensees. No objection was made to this part of the charge which, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 51, we review only for plain error which might result in a miscarriage of justice. Williams v. Hoyt, 556 F.2d 1336 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 946, 98 S.Ct. 1530, 55 L.Ed.2d 544 (1978). 19 The pertinent parts of the jury charge on the invitee/licensee issue include: 20 Specifically, the plaintiff complains that Baker was negligent to him as an invitee, saying that Baker had a duty to use reasonable care ... to make and keep the premises safe for persons invited to use the premises. If the plaintiff was on premises over which the defendant had control, defendant-Baker, or which Baker owned and the plaintiff was there with Baker's knowledge and for the mutual benefit of the plaintiff and Baker, then the plaintiff is an invitee. It's not necessary that the invitee be expressly issued an invitation to come onto the premises, but that invitation may be implied under the circumstances, but there has to be more than mere acquiescence, that is, mere sufferance for somebody to be there. 21 To be successful on his claim that he was an invitee, Mr. Richendollar must prove that he was an invitee while occupying that basket; that is to say that it was Baker's basket or a basket controlled by Baker and present for the use of all who came along and inuring to the mutual benefit of the user and Baker. 22 Now, that mutuality of benefit is important here because if Mr. Richendollar does not prove himself to be an invitee, he is a licensee in this case. 23 The court then went on to explain that if Richendollar was an invitee as respects the basket, Baker had a duty to use reasonable care to assure that it was safe for the use intended and to warn of non-apparent, non-obvious dangers. If, on the other hand, Richendollar was only a licensee, Baker would be liable only for willful or wanton conduct or conscious indifference. 24 As in all instances in which a part of the charge to the jury is challenged, we view the entire charge to see whether it is comprehensive, balanced, fundamentally accurate, and not likely to confuse or mislead the jury. Scheib v. Williams-McWilliams Co., Inc., 628 F.2d 509, 511 (5th Cir.1980). Applying that test we are convinced that the charge as given accurately reflects Texas law. 25 In Adam Dante Corp. v. Sharpe, 483 S.W.2d 452 (Tex.1972), the Texas Supreme Court adopted the rule enunciated in Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 343 (1965). Under that rubric an occupier must exercise reasonable care to avoid the negligent injury of invitees, warning of latent dangers and making reasonable inspections of the premises. The occupier generally had no duty to protect an invitee from known or knowable dangers. Adam Dante; Halepeska v. Callihan Interests, Inc., 371 S.W.2d 368 (Tex.1963); Harvey v. Seale, 362 S.W.2d 310 (Tex.1962). This Texas no duty doctrine evolved until it became incumbent upon a plaintiff to prove, in his case-in-chief, lack of knowledge of the dangerous condition. In Parker v. Highland Park, Inc., 565 S.W.2d 512 (Tex.1978), the Texas Supreme Court expressly abolished the so-called no-duty concept and announced that henceforth the liability of occupiers to invitees would be based on general principles of negligence and contributory negligence. Id. at 517, 519-21. 26 Texas law defines invitees as those who enter premises for the mutual benefit of the entrant and the occupier. Galveston Oil Co. v. Morton, 70 Tex. 400, 7 S.W. 756 (Tex.1888) (first adopting the mutual advantage test of invitee status); Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. v. Smith, 563 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Texas Power & Light Co. v. Holder, 385 S.W.2d 873 (Tex.Civ.App.--Tyler 1964, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Mendez v. Knights of Columbus Hall, 431 S.W.2d 29 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1968, no writ ). 27 The duty to licensees is substantially less than that owed invitees. As the Texas Supreme Court stated in State v. Tennison, 509 S.W.2d 560, 562 (Tex.1974) (citations omitted): 28 [I]f the person injured was on the premises as a licensee, the duty that the proprietor or licensor owed him was not to injure him by willful, wanton or gross negligence .... An exception to the general rule is that when the licensor has knowledge of a dangerous condition, and the licensee does not, a duty is owed on the part of the licensor to either warn the licensee or to make the condition reasonably safe.... Texas has conformed to the generally recognized rule that the duty to warn licensees of dangerous conditions arises only in those instances where the licensor knows of the condition likely to cause injury. 29 Finally, we review that part of the charge which was subjected to timely objection, the supplemental instruction concerning the duty of Baker with respect to control of the equipment of another on its premises. The court instructed: 30 Baker Marine controls what it owns and possesses.... It controls all that it owns and possesses. It is not obligated to control equipment of outside contractors properly on its premises, although it can assume control by its conduct and can assume control by its agreement to do so. 31 This adequately distills Texas law. See generally Olivier v. Snowden, 426 S.W.2d 545 (Tex.1968). 32 The charge given to the jury fairly reflected the controlling provisions of Texas law. The jury received the guidance needed for a proper resolution of this dispute. 33 The challenge leveled by Richendollar as to the sufficiency of the evidence is not persuasive. We have frequently noted the applicable standard for review of sufficiency of the evidence assignments of error in civil cases. In Carlton v. Shelton, 722 F.2d 203, 205 (5th Cir.1984), we reminded: 34 In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, we apply well-settled standards of appellate review. If the state of the proof is such that reasonable and impartial minds could reach the conclusion expressed in the jury's verdict, we must not disturb the jury's findings on appeal. 35 Richendollar argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the finding that he was a licensee in the shipyard. Assuming arguendo that the basket was Baker's, a fact not established in this record, for entitlement to invitee status it would be necessary for Richendollar to show that his use constituted a profit or advantage for Baker. Olivier. The record contains ample evidence upon which the jury could have based its conclusion that Richendollar's use of the basket was not for Baker's gain or advantage but was solely related to Diamond M's interest in preparing the rig for transshipment and use immediately upon its release by the shipyard. 36 Nor are we impressed by the contention that the evidence does not support the finding that Baker was not negligent. Pretermitting the question about ownership and control of the defective work basket, there is sufficient evidence in support of the jury finding. Richendollar was employed by Diamond M and dispatched to the DON E. McMAHON to do Diamond M work, using Diamond M equipment, under Diamond M supervisors, and following Diamond M safety practices and procedures. The Diamond M toolpusher, Roy Harrelson, was in charge of the overall operation, including safety procedures. There is an abundance of evidence from which the jury could find that Baker reasonably relied on Diamond M to guide and control its own crew and equipment in a manner consistent with meaningful safety practices.