Opinion ID: 532565
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Operational Control

Text: 8 Our review of the district court's directed verdict is governed by Boeing v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374-75 (5th Cir.1969) (en banc). 9 On motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict the Court should consider all of the evidence--not just that evidence which supports the non-mover's case--but in the light and with all reasonable inferences favorable to the party opposed to the motion. If the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the Court believes that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict, granting of the motions is proper. On the other hand, if there is substantial evidence opposed to the motions, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motions should be denied, and the case submitted to the jury. A mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient to present a question for the jury. 10 See also Coursey v. Broadhurst, 888 F.2d 338, 343-44 (5th Cir.1989) and Strauch v. Gates Rubber Co., 879 F.2d 1282, 1285 (5th Cir.1989). The standard for a directed verdict mirrors the standard for summary judgment. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The critical point is that the reviewing court must uphold the directed verdict or the summary judgment if under the governing law, there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict. 477 U.S. at 250, 106 S.Ct. at 2511. 11 The law governing this dispute is well established. A principal is not liable for the torts of an independent contractor unless the principal exercises operational control over or expressly or impliedly authorizes the independent contractor's actions. See Zepherin v. Conoco Oil Co., 884 F.2d 212, 213 (5th Cir.1989); Boutwell v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 864 F.2d 406, 407 (5th Cir.1989); Grammer v. Patterson Services, Inc., 860 F.2d 639, 641 (5th Cir.1988), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 3190, 105 L.Ed.2d 698 (1989); Bartholomew v. CNG Producing Co., 832 F.2d 326, 329 (5th Cir.1987); Ainsworth v. Shell Offshore, Inc., 829 F.2d 548, 549-50 (5th Cir.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1593, 99 L.Ed.2d 908 (1988); 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); McCormack v. Noble Drilling Corp., 608 F.2d 169, 174-75 (5th Cir.1979); and RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS Sec. 414. 12 As a preliminary matter we note that the fact pattern underlying the present dispute does not mirror the typical operational control case. Normally the employee of an independent contractor sues the principal and attempts to show that the principal exercised control over the contractor's operations. The present dispute involves a suit by an employee of a subagent of the principal (Exchange contracted with Loomis who in turn contracted with Connor) suing an independent contractor who was allegedly authorized by the principal to exercise authority over the plaintiff's employer. We need not decide whether an independent contractor may be sued by the employee of another independent contractor because the elements which establish liability under the operational control test are lacking. 13 Hydril owed no duty to Landry upon which a tort suit could be premised. It does not suffice to establish liability that Exchange delegated authority to Hydril to direct matters on the rig floor. 1 Landry must also show that Hydril told him how to do his job: 14 In order for [a principal] to be liable for the actions of an independent contractor], the [principal] must have retained at least some degree of control over the manner in which the work is done. It is not enough that he has merely a general right to order the work stopped or resumed, to inspect its progress or to receive reports, to make suggestions or recommendations which need not necessarily be followed, or to prescribe alterations or deviations. Such a general right is usually reserved to employers, but this does not mean that the contractor is controlled as to his methods of work, or as to operative detail. There must be such a retention of right of supervision that the contractor is not entirely free to do the work in his own way. 15 RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS Sec. 414, comment c. 16 Landry testified that he had to lift the tongs even though the tongs were unbalanced because Estave ordered him to: 17 We started running pipe. Then my tongs would come down a little bit, but I was satisfied with them. But Irving [Estave] wasn't satisfied with them, and he kept telling me to pick up my tongs. 18 R. vol. 5, p. 190. The adjustments which Estave required Landry to make exceeded those which Landry normally made. R. vol. 5, p. 253. Landry argues that Estave's orders create a factual dispute as to whether operational control was exercised and it was improper, therefore, to grant a directed verdict. 19 The instructions given by Estave, however, do not amount to operational control. In Grammer, supra, the independent contractor tested the principal's pipeline. The principal asked the independent contractor to conduct a less stringent test and the plaintiff was injured while conducting the new tests. We rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the principal's instructions constituted operational control. We reasoned only instructions designating 'how to' conduct operations merit application of the operational control exception. 860 F.2d at 639. Since the contractor was free to conduct the test in its own way, the principal did not exercise operational control. Estave's instructions to Landry are similar to those given by the principal in Grammer. Estave retained the right to inspect the connections, protect the pipe and connectors from damage and to tell Landry the amount of torque to apply. The Hydril representative gave Landry orders because he wanted certain results reached--to protect the pipe and connectors from damage while torque was applied--but he never told Landry how to do his job. He never told Landry how to rig, counterbalance, raise or lower the tongs. Nor is there evidence that Landry was prevented from further adjusting the counterbalance had he wished to do so. 20 The other grounds which the appellants argue constitute reversible error do not disturb our decision that a directed verdict was properly granted. The expert whose testimony was excluded had nothing relevant to say on the issue of operational control. Nor does the motion for a mistrial constitute grounds for reversal. The prejudice, if any, to the jury is irrelevant because a directed verdict was properly granted. See New England Merchants Natl. Bank v. Rosenfield, 679 F.2d 467, 475 (5th Cir.1982).