Clay v. ENSCO Offshore Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2508
| Decision Date | 18 November 2015 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2508 |
| Citation | 146 F.Supp.3d 808 |
| Parties | Bobby Clay v. ENSCO Offshore Company |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Frank E. Lamothe, III, Richard Massie Martin, Jr., Lamothe Law Firm, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for Bobby Clay.
Delos E. Flint, Jr., W. Jacob Gardner, Jr., Fowler Rodriguez, New Orleans, LA, for ENSCO Offshore Company.
Eldon E. Fallon
Before the Court are three summary judgment motions: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against ENSCO (R. Doc. 51); (2) ENSCO's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's claims for unseaworthiness and Jones Act negligence (R. Doc. 60) and (3) Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against STC on liability. (R. Doc. 52). Having considered the parties' briefs and the applicable law, the Court now issues this Order and Reasons.
This admiralty case arises out an injury allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff Bobby Clay (“Plaintiff”) while working aboard the vessel ENSCO 8506, a semisubmersible drilling vessel. Plaintiff filed suit under the Jones Act and General Maritime Law of the United States against ENSCO Offshore Company (“ENSCO”) as his employer and as the owner and/or operator of the ENSCO 8506. (R. Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleges that while working aboard the vessel he suffered “severe and excruciating injuries which were proximately caused by the negligence of defendant.” Id. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he was injured when a drill tool broke and struck him in the neck. As a result of this incident, Plaintiff claims he has suffered and will continue to suffer loss of income, medical expenses, and severely painful and disabling injuries. Plaintiff seeks general and special damages and maintenance and cure from ENSCO. Id. Plaintiff and ENSCO have now stipulated that Plaintiff enjoys seaman status under the Jones Act. (R. Doc. 34). Plaintiff ultimately amended his complaint to name Schlumberger Technology Corporation (“STC”) as a co-defendant, re-alleging all claims against ENSCO and claiming negligence against STC under Louisiana law. (R. Doc. 42). The relationship between the Defendants in this case is complex and is described in greater detail below.
In September of 2001, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (“Anadarko”) and STC entered into a Master Service Agreement, pursuant to which STC would provide petroleum exploration-related services to Anadarko. Thereafter, in January of 2012, Anadarko and ENSCO entered into a Daywork Drilling Contract, pursuant to which ENSCO would provide drilling services to Anadarko. On the date of the alleged injury, ENSCO's semi-submersible drilling vessel “ENSCO 8506” was providing such drilling services to Anadarko and STC personnel were providing tool and casing removal services to Anardarko. At this time, the ENSCO drilling crew was engaged in “plug and abandonment” well work in the navigable waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Specifically, casing which lined the well underground was being extracted. A tool called a “shortcut spear” (a/k/a “plug and abandon spear”) was used to remove the casing; the spear goes “down hole,” expands when turned, and grabs the inside of the casing so it can be extracted. See (R. Doc. 51-2), the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of STC, at 16-18. The shortcut spear was manufactured by STC and assembled by STC prior to being brought aboard the ENSCO 8506. Personnel from STC's Drilling Tools and Remedial Division (DT&R), Ryan Motty (“Motty”) and Karl Drobbish, were assigned to the ENSCO 8506 as field supervisors to oversee the assembly and use of the STC plug and abandonment tools. Id. at 12, 28-29.
On or about August 7, 2013, Plaintiff was an ENSCO employee assigned to drill deck floor hand duties aboard the ENSCO 8506. Prior to beginning downhole operations with the shortcut spear, Motty began a function test of the tool. The function test was unsuccessful and Motty halted sending the spear “down hole” while he left the drill floor to consult a service manual. (R. Doc. 59-4 at 1). Motty returned to the drill floor and tried to “troubleshoot” the shortcut spear using the vessel's hydraulic tongs. (R. Docs. 51-11, 59-4, 61-4). This effort was unsuccessful. Id. Motty next tried to “troubleshoot” the shortcut spear using the vessel's elevator. Id. This effort was also unsuccessful. Id. Four ENSCO floor hands, including the Plaintiff, were then directed to use chain tongs to rotate the spear. (R. Doc. 51-2 at 64-65). While attempting to manipulate the shortcut spear using the chain tongs, the steel drag block components of the tool, which were approximately 25 inches long and weighed approximately 26 pounds each, were ejected from a position three or more feet above the Plaintiff. (R. Docs. 51-11, 59-4, 61-4). Plaintiff was struck on the back of his neck by the ejected steel drag block components of the tool and allegedly injured. Id.
Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)
(citing FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c) ); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.1994). When assessing whether a dispute as to any material fact exists, the Court considers “all of the evidence in the record but refrains from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence.” Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398 (5th Cir.2008).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)
, the moving party bears the initial burden of “informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex , 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548. When the moving party has met its Rule 56(c) burden, “[t]he non-movant cannot avoid summary judgment ... by merely making ‘conclusory allegations' or ‘unsubstantiated assertions.’ ” Calbillo v. Cavender Oldsmobile, Inc. , 288 F.3d 721, 725 (5th Cir.2002) (quoting Little , 37 F.3d at 1075 ). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 253, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, but a party cannot defeat summary judgment with conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated assertions. Little, 37 F.3d at 1075. A court ultimately must be satisfied that “a reasonable jury could not return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Delta, 530 F.3d at 399.
Plaintiff seeks an entry of partial summary judgment against ENSCO as to his unseaworthiness claim and his Jones Act negligence claim. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that (1) the shortcut spear was an “appurtenance” of the ENSCO 8506; (2) the defective shortcut spear rendered the ENSCO 8506 unseaworthy; and (3) ENSCO is liable to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Jones Act. ENSCO opposes the motion and seeks an entry of partial summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's claims, arguing that (1) the unseaworthiness claim should be dismissed as a matter of law because the shortcut spear is not an appurtenance of the ENSCO 8506 and the crew of the ENSCO 8506 did not render the vessel unseaworthy and (2) the negligence claim should be also be dismissed because there is no evidence that ENSCO breached its duty of care. The Court will discuss each of these claims in turn.
Drachenberg v. Canal Barge Co., Inc., 571 F.2d 912, 918 (5th Cir.1978)
. This duty extends to “the hull of the vessel, the vessel's cargo handling machinery, lines and tackle and all kinds of equipment either belonging to the vessel owner or brought aboard by others.” Bush v. Diamond Offshore Co., 46 F.Supp.2d 515, 520 (E.D.La.1999). Nichols v. Weeks Marine, Inc., 513 F.Supp.2d 627, 635 (E.D.La.2007) (quoting
Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp., 400 U.S. 494, 499–500, 91 S.Ct. 514, 27 L.Ed.2d 562 (1971) ). The duty of seaworthiness does not, however, extend to providing “a perfect or accident-free vessel.” Phillips v. Western Co., 953 F.2d 923, 928 (5th Cir.1992).
In opposition to the Plaintiff's motion, ENSCO argues that Plaintiff's unseaworthiness claim against ENSCO should be dismissed for two reasons: (1) the shortcut spear involved in Plaintiff's alleged accident was not an appurtenance of the vessel; and (2) the crew of the vessel did not render the vessel unseaworthy. The Court will discuss each argument in turn.
As noted above, the duty of seaworthiness extends not just to the vessel but to all equipment that is appurtenant to the vessel. Drachenberg, 571 F.2d at 918
. An appurtenance is “any identifiable item that is destined for use aboard a specifically identifiable vessel and is essential to the vessel's navigation, operation or mission.” Coakley v. SeaRiver Maritime, Inc., 319 F.Supp.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bethany Coll. v. United States
- Welch v. Prop Transp. & Trading, LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:15-cv-187-JMV
-
Soudelier v. PBC Mgmt., Inc.
...in part. Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d 331, 335 (5th Cir.1997) (en banc ). In Clay v. ENSCO Offshore Co., No. 14–2508, 146 F.Supp.3d 808, 2015 WL 7306436, *, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156568, *19, 2016 AMC 130 (E.D.La.2015), the court said:Once the seaman had demonstrated the dut......
-
Soudelier v. PBC Mgmt.
...even the slightest" in causing the injury or death for which damages are sought. Id., quoting Clay v. ENSCO Offshore Co., No. 14-2508, 146 F.Supp.3d 808, 2015WL7306436, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156568, 2016 AMC 130 (E.D.La. 2015). To recover damages for his employer's negligence, a seaman must......