Hebron v. Union Oil Co. of California, 79-1859
| Decision Date | 15 January 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1859,79-1859 |
| Citation | 634 F.2d 245 |
| Parties | Roy HEBRON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants-Appellees. Summary Calendar. . Unit A |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Charles F. Gay, Jr., John R. Martzell, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
James Holmes, New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellees.
Francis Emmett, Randolph J. Waits, New Orleans, La., for Weber Callais.
Philip A. Fant, New Orleans, La., for intervenor.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before AINSWORTH, GARZA and SAM D. JOHNSON, Circuit Judges:
Roy Hebron had been employed as a painter foreman by Hutco, a division of Ashy-Hutchinson Enterprises. Hutco had contracted with Union Oil of California to provide cleaning and painting services on oil exploration platforms owned and operated by Union Oil. The platform involved in this case was located in the Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico. Hebron had been stationed on the platform for about eight months. He had always received his orders directly from a Hutco employee. On April 12, 1975, the only two men on the platform were Fred Billizon, a Union Oil employee, and Hebron. Since Hebron's supervisor at Hutco would be absent for a week, Hebron was receiving his orders directly from Billizon. On that day, Billizon received an order from his superior to send an A-frame to another platform nearby. The A-frame, which was apparently about ten feet tall, was to be loaded onto the M/V Tommy Brad, a vessel owned by Weber Callais Boat Rentals and time chartered to Union Oil. The seas were running at six to eight feet, which are considered moderately rough, but not necessarily dangerous for loading and unloading equipment. The record shows that similar loading and unloading operations had been conducted successfully and without mishaps under comparable conditions.
After securing the A-frame to the platform crane by means of a hook, Billizon told Hebron to go below to the boat in order to unhook the crane once the A-frame was loaded. The A-frame was lowered successfully onto the deck of the Tommy Brad. Almost immediately, Hebron scaled the ladder on the side of the A-frame and then side-stepped along a crossbar to undo the hook holding the A-frame. With one hand holding onto the A-frame, Hebron reached out for the hook. Hebron successfully opened the hook and separated it from the cables attached to the A-frame. Due to the motion of the boat, however, the hook slipped from Hebron's hand. After a few attempts at reaching for the hook, which was suspended from the platform, Hebron gave up and decided to climb down. It was at that point that the hook latched on to one of the bars of the A-frame, tilting it to one side. This sudden motion threw Hebron off the A-frame and sent him plummeting to the deck ten feet below.
Hebron filed a complaint seeking damages against Union Oil and Weber Callais under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, (OCSLA) 43 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1356 and under general maritime law, including the warranty of seaworthiness. Since § 1333(b) of the OCSLA invokes the provisions of the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, (LHWCA), 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-950, the court and parties agreed that the actions against the various parties would be found under 33 U.S.C. § 905(b), since the rules of general maritime law including seaworthiness do not apply in such cases. § 905(b) allows an employee to sue a vessel as a third party under a negligence theory only.
All factual issues were presented to a jury, with the jury serving only in an advisory capacity on the § 905(b) claims. After Hebron presented his case, Union Oil moved for a directed verdict on the OCSLA claim, and both Weber Callais and Union Oil moved for involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the § 905(b) claims. The court granted all defense motions, holding that Weber was a borrowed servant of Union Oil, that the vessel had not been negligent, and Union Oil had not been negligent in dispatching the vessel.
A directed verdict is appropriate if the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the court believes reasonable persons could not reach a contrary verdict. Caldwell v. Manhattan Tankers Corp., 618 F.2d 361 at 362-363 (5th Cir. 1980); Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374 (5th Cir. 1969) (en banc). An employee of one person or company may become the servant of another person or company if h...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barrosse v. Huntington Ingalls Inc.
...Cir. 1987) (citing 33 U.S.C. §§ 904(a), 905(a), and 933(i) ; Gaudet v. Exxon Corp. , 562 F.2d 351 (5th Cir. 1977) ; Hebron v. Union Oil Co. , 634 F.2d 245 (5th Cir. 1981) ).125 R. Doc. 101 at p. 31.126 Id.127 Id. (emphasis in original).128 Id. at p. 30 (citing Anderson v. Avondale Indus., I......
-
English v. Wood Grp. PSN, Inc.
...Marine Services, Inc. v. Director, Office of Worker's Compensation Programs, 87 F.3d 774, 777 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Hebron v. Union Oil Co., 634 F.2d 245 (5th Cir.1981)); Gaudet v. Exxon Corp., 562 F.2d 351 (5th Cir.1977); Melancon v. Amoco Prod. Co, 834 F.2d 1238, 1243-44 (5thCir.1988). ......
-
Riley v. Southwest Marine, Inc.
...with the special employer; he may not bring a separate tort action against either employer. (See, e.g., Hebron v. Union Oil Co. of California (5th Cir.1981) 634 F.2d 245, 248; Jones v. Kaiser Industries Corp. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 552, 556, 237 Cal.Rptr. 568, ----, 737 P.2d 771; 33 U.S.C. § 905(......
-
Langfitt v. Fed. Marine Terminals Inc.
...379 (W.D.La.1963) (citations omitted). This includes our compensation cases arising under the LHWCA. E.g., Hebron v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 634 F.2d 245, 247–48 (5th Cir.1981); Gaudet, 562 F.2d at 355.20 When we apply the doctrine to cases arising under the LHWCA, however, our focus is more......