Filed: Apr. 07, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 97-30881 Summary Calendar _ CHARLES D. DARR, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS CHEVRON, U.S.A., INC.; CHEVRON INDUSTRIES, INC.; CHEVRON INTERNATIONAL OIL COMPANY, INC.; CHEVRON OIL COMPANY; CALIFORNIA OIL COMPANY; and ENRON OIL & GAS COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (96-CV-2818-R) _ April 2, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. JERR
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 97-30881 Summary Calendar _ CHARLES D. DARR, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS CHEVRON, U.S.A., INC.; CHEVRON INDUSTRIES, INC.; CHEVRON INTERNATIONAL OIL COMPANY, INC.; CHEVRON OIL COMPANY; CALIFORNIA OIL COMPANY; and ENRON OIL & GAS COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (96-CV-2818-R) _ April 2, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. JERRY..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 97-30881
Summary Calendar
_______________
CHARLES D. DARR, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
CHEVRON, U.S.A., INC.;
CHEVRON INDUSTRIES, INC.;
CHEVRON INTERNATIONAL OIL COMPANY, INC.;
CHEVRON OIL COMPANY;
CALIFORNIA OIL COMPANY;
and
ENRON OIL & GAS COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(96-CV-2818-R)
_________________________
April 2, 1998
Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:*
Charles Darr brings this Texas negligence action under the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”), 43 U.S.C.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
§ 1333(a)(2)(A). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
I.
On August 29, 1995, Darr was injured when his shirt caught a
protruding “jack bolt” on an oil platform stairwell and caused him
to tumble down the stairs. Darr maintains that this fall led to
back and knee injuries, which later required surgery. Darr was an
employee of Santa Fe Minerals, Inc. (“Santa Fe”), at the time of
his accident.
Santa Fe and Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. (“Chevron”),1 jointly owned
and operated the platform, located on a tract of leased federal
land, High Island Block 120 (“HI-120"), and situated on the Outer
Continental Shelf, adjacent to the State of Texas. The two
companies had oil and gas leases from the United States on
adjoining tracts and had agreed to operate jointly this one
platform in order to maximize their profits.
The agreements between Santa Fe and Chevron provided that the
two companies would share proportionately the profits and expenses
of the platform and would share control of the platform's
operations. Both companies contributed to a joint fund that paid
the costs for employees to operate the platform, and that bore the
risk of loss to such employees for their work at the site.
On May 1, 1995, Santa Fe and Enron Oil & Gas Company (“Enron”)
1
Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., is the only Chevron defendant having any interest
in this litigation.
2
entered a Purchase and Sale Agreement in which Santa Fe agreed to
sell Enron certain of its energy operations, including its
interests in the HI-120 lease and oil platform located thereon. On
August 29, 1995 (coincidentally, the date of Darr's injury),
Santa Fe assigned its lease interest in HI-120 to Enron. The
assignment was delivered to Enron at closing, which took place on
August 31, 1995.
II.
We review a summary judgment de novo. See Hanks v.
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 953 F.2d 996, 997 (5th Cir.
1992). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled
to a judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). The mov-
ant bears the burden of demonstrating that there is an absence of
evidence to support the respondent’s case. See Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). The non-movant then must set
forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.
See
Hanks, 953 F.2d at 997.
We begin by consulting the applicable substantive law to
determine what facts and issues are material. See King v. Chide,
974 F.2d 653, 655-56 (5th Cir. 1992). If there are fact issues
3
presented, we review the evidence relating to those issues, viewing
the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-
movant. See id. If the non-movant sets forth specific facts in
support of allegations essential to his claim, a genuine issue is
presented. See
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323; Brothers v. Klevenhagen,
28 F.3d 452, 455 (5th Cir. 1994).
III.
Darr sues Enron claiming that it was negligent in operating
its oil platform.2 Under OCSLA, Texas law governs Darr's suit.
See 43 U.S.C. § 1333(a)(2)(A).
Texas law provides that “[a]n owner or occupier of land has a
duty to use reasonable care to keep the premises under his control
in a safe condition.” Redinger v. Living, Inc., 689 S.W.2d 415,
417 (Tex. 1985) (citation omitted).
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 328E (1965) defines
"owner or occupier" in terms of "possessor":
A possessor of land is
(a) a person who is in occupation of the land with
intent to control it or
(b) a person who has been in occupation of land
with intent to control it, if no other person has
subsequently occupied it with intent to control it,
or
(c) a person who is entitled to immediate
2
To avoid LHWCA employer immunity, Darr must maintain that he was employed
by Santa Fe, not Enron. See infra part IV.
4
occupation of the land, if no other person is in
possession under Clauses (a) and (b).
Id. The standard of conduct required of a premises
occupier toward his invitees is the ordinary care that a
reasonably prudent person would exercise under all the
pertinent circumstances. See Restatement (Second) of
Torts § 343 (1965); Corbin, 648 S.W.2d at 295. This duty
only arises, however, for an occupier with control of the
premises. See Redinger, 689 S.W.2d at 417; Sem v. State,
821 S.W.2d 411, 414-15 (Tex. App.SSFort Worth 1991, no
writ); Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Lara, 786 S.W.2d 48, 49
(Tex. App.SSEl Paso 1990, writ denied).
Gunn v. Harris Methodist Affiliated Hosps., 887 S.W.2d 248, 251
(Tex. App.SSFort Worth 1994, writ denied).
Darr has alleged insufficient evidence to create a genuine
fact issue of whether Enron was a possessor of the oil platform at
the time of his injuries. Darr primarily relies on his defective
affidavit to show that Enron was an “occupier with control” of the
platform. This affidavit states only that [p]rior to the incident
on August 29, 1995, [Enron] came to High Island platform on several
occasions to inspect for environmental hazards” and that “During
June and July of 1995, stimulation activities of the wells were
conducted by Santa Fe Minerals, Inc. at [Enron's] request,
including the well at High Island 120, in order to increase well
production.” This evidence alone is insufficient to raise a fact
issue whether Enron was an “occupier with control” of the land
under Texas law. See Redinger, 689 S.W.2d at 418.
Darr also points to the Purchase and Sale Agreement, which, he
maintains, “turned over blanket authority and control to Enron for
5
operations [of the HI-120 platform], starting May 1, 1995.” This
agreement, however, was only an agreement to sell some of Santa
Fe's assets to Enron; it did not accomplish a sale, a transfer of
possession, or a change in control from Santa Fe to Enron.
Without more, Darr's claim against Enron, therefore, fails.
His evidence to avoid judgment as a matter of law does not do
enough to raise a fact issue about Enron's possession of the oil
platform on August 29, 1995SSa necessary element of his negligence
claim against Enron.
IV.
Darr sues Chevron for negligence because it was a co-owner of
the oil platform, which was under its joint control. Darr is
precluded from seeking tort recovery against his employer,
Santa Fe, under the LHWCA, as LHWCA benefits provide the sole
remedy. See 43 U.S.C. § 1333(b); 33 U.S.C. § 905.
Under our well-settled caselaw, LHWCA employer immunity also
prevents Darr from seeking recovery against those parties forming
part of a joint venture with his employer to operate the oil
platform where the injury occurred. See, e.g., Heavin v. Mobil Oil
Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc., 913 F.2d 178, 179-80 (5th
Cir. 1990); Davidson v. Enstar Corp.,
860 F.2d 167, 168 (5th Cir.
1988) (per curiam) (on rehearing); Bertrand v. Forest Corp.,
441
F.2d 809, 810-11 (5th Cir. 1971) (per curiam). We have previously
6
outlined a four-factor test for determining whether such a joint
venture exists for LHWCA employer immunity purposes. See Davidson
v. Enstar Corp., 848 F.2d 574, 577-78 (5th Cir.), modified on
rehearing on other grounds,
860 F.2d 167 (5th Cir. 1988).
The factors that a court considers are: “1) whether the
parties intended to form a partnership or joint venture; 2) whether
the parties share a common interest in the subject matter of the
venture; 3) whether the parties share profits and losses from the
venture; and 4) whether the parties have joint control or the joint
right of control over the venture.” Id. at 577. A joint well
operation can be a “joint venture” for purposes of LHWCA employer
immunity even if the parties' agreement explicitly disclaims
interpretation of the agreement as such. See
Davidson, 860 F.2d at
168.
The agreements between Chevron and Santa Fe make plain that
the factors of the this test are met. The agreements governing the
operation of the oil platform between the two companies are like
those in Heavin and Bertrand. As in those cases, here, both
companies agreed to share control of the platform's operations and
to pay employees from a common fund and to share profits from the
platform's production.3 So, Chevron is entitled to employer
3
The extension of LHWCA immunity to Chevron also makes sense in light of
the policy concerns of that act. Congress intended to decrease the transaction
costs of litigation against employers by establishing a “no-fault” workers
compensation system. An employer contributes to an insurance fund, which then
forms the basis for the employee's recovery. The employer's contribution to the
fund, in essence, is an ex ante probabilistic payment of liability, for which,
7
immunity for this ordinary negligence suit under the terms of the
LHWCA.
AFFIRMED.
in return, the employer is immune from ordinary negligence suits brought by
employees.
If two companies share the cost of employees by contributing to a joint
accountSSan account that also pays the premiums to the LHWCA insurance fundSSit
makes no sense to allow the injured worker to seek recovery through the tort
system against the employer's joint venturer. Allowing tort recovery in this
case against Chevron would eviscerate the legislative bargain by requiring the
defendant corporation both to contribute to the LHWCA fund, through deductions
from its joint account with Santa Fe, and to be subject to tort liability.
8
