Crum v. Continental Oil Company
| Decision Date | 10 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-2774 Summary Calendar.,72-2774 Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 471 F.2d 784 |
| Parties | Guy Daniel CRUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Foye L. Lowe, Jr., J. D. DeBlieux, Baton Rouge, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
G. Michael Pharis, Tom F. Phillips, Baton Rouge, La., for defendant-appellee.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, GOLDBERG and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff, Guy Daniel Crum, an employee of Buras Contractors, Inc., brought suit against defendant, Continental Oil Company, for injuries sustained by him while working aboard a fixed platform owned by defendant, located in the Gulf of Mexico about 30 miles offshore from Grand Isle, Louisiana. The accident occurred on September 11, 1969, at which time plaintiff, along with other Buras employees, was engaged in the maintenance and repair of defendant's platform.
The undisputed facts, taken from plaintiff's own deposition, indicate that the accident occurred as follows: Crum, employed as a welder's helper by Buras, was instructed by his foreman to obtain I-Beams of a certain size from a stack of I-Beams on the platform. Three roustabouts, also employees of Buras, were assigned to help pull the beams out of the stack. Pursuant to Crum's instructions, the roustabouts lifted several I-Beams while Crum, using a device called a tugger clamp, attempted to remove the proper sized beam from near the bottom of the stack. As Crum started attaching the clamp to the beam, one of the beams held by the roustabouts fell, and despite the warning cries of the roustabouts, Mr. Crum's hands were seriously injured by the falling beams. Continental Oil owned and operated the platform and all the materials on the platform.
The district court, with the pleadings and plaintiff's deposition before it, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment based upon the following finding: "there is no material issue of fact involved in this case, and . . . the established facts . . . not only fail to show any negligence whatsoever on the part of the defendant, Continental Oil Company, but, in fact, negate any evidence of negligence on the part of defendant. . . ." Plaintiff appeals, claiming that had the case gone to the jury, he would have proven that the accident was caused by defendant's negligent failure to maintain the platform and materials on it in proper condition. See Washington v. T. Smith & Sons, 68 So.2d 337 (La.App.—Orleans, 1953); Dupre v. Travelers Insurance Co., 213 So.2d 98 (La.App.—First Cir., 1968).
As a general rule, we look with extreme...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haugen v. United States, 78 C 2549.
...in the federal defendants' favor is appropriate, notwithstanding that the complaint sounds in negligence. See Crum v. Continental Oil Co., 471 F.2d 784 (5th Cir. 1973); Berry v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 273 F.2d 572 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 976, 80 S.Ct. 1060, 4 L.Ed.2d 1......
-
Haas v. United States, Civ. A. No. 75-4110-K.
...that there is no genuine issue of material fact. E. g., Gates v. Ford Motor Co., 494 F.2d 458 (10th Cir. 1974); Crum v. Continental Oil Co., 471 F.2d 784 (5th Cir. 1973). The court does not find in the affidavits and exhibits before the court on this motion any evidence, within the records ......