Hyde v. Chevron USA, Inc., Civ. A. No. 78-740.

Decision Date30 March 1981
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 78-740.
Citation514 F. Supp. 740
PartiesGerald M. HYDE, Jr. v. CHEVRON U. S. A., INC.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

John D. Schoonenberg, Houma, La., for plaintiff.

Lloyd C. Melancon, McLoughlin, Barranger Provosty & Melancon, New Orleans, La., for defendant.

Johnson & McAlpine, Ronald A. Johnson, Michael L. McAlpine, New Orleans, La., for Pool Offshore Co.

ARCENEAUX, District Judge.

Trial of this matter commenced on December 11, 1980.

Considering the evidence and the law, the Court, for reasons hereinafter set forth finds that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Chevron U.S.A., Inc. ("Chevron") in the sum of $198,920.83. Further, Chevron cannot prevail in its third-party claim for indemnity against Pool Offshore Company ("Pool"). Finally, Employers National Insurance Company is entitled to $57,290.02, pursuant to its intervention, out of the plaintiff's award.

I. Findings of Fact
1.

Plaintiff Gerald M. Hyde, Jr. was employed as a derrickman and relief driller aboard the Pool workover rig no. 2, which was attached, along with living quarters and galley, to the South Timbalier Block 189A production platform owned and operated by the defendant, Chevron, on the date of the accident, May 10, 1977.

2.

On or about May 10, 1977, the Chevron South Timbalier Block 189A structure was permanently attached to the ocean floor of the Gulf of Mexico.

3.

The Chevron platform, where the accident took place, had only a limited area upon which the Pool workover rig and associated equipment could be positioned.

4.

Chevron production equipment was installed on the platform. Due to limited space caused by the location of production equipment, vessels, tanks and manifolds, the Pool workover rig and appurtenances (the living quarters, galley and related facilities) did not have their usual allotted space.

5.

The normal construction of the Pool galley and living quarters is side by side.

6.

Due to limited space on the platform, Pool constructed the living quarters on top of the galley.

7.

Because of the location of Chevron equipment, the living quarters-galley facility was modified and an extension was welded onto the stairs leading thereto so that the staircase could reach the main deck of the living quarters.

8.

The extension consisted of cutting the staircase at the bottom where a porch had previously existed. The staircase was then welded onto the living quarters at the top, and to the main deck at the bottom. An additional step was welded to the staircase, since the physical configuration of the platform required that the staircase be lengthened in order for it to reach the main deck of the platform. The evidence is in direct conflict as to whether the handrails reached the main deck. No one who testified has a clear memory that would enable us to decide this issue.

9.

The staircase was steeper than usual.

10.

On the date of the accident, plaintiff had just arrived aboard the platform for the first day of his tour of duty. After disembarking from the helicopter, he went upstairs to the living quarters to change his clothes. After having changed, he was coming down the stairs on his way to the galley for breakfast.

11.

On the date of the accident, it was drizzling, causing the steps to be slippery. The Court finds that rain is a normal and expected hazard of this operation.

12.

When plaintiff stepped on the third-to-last step from the bottom, his foot slipped, and he began to fall. Plaintiff was falling feet first. When he reached the last step, it separated from its support on one side and caved in or pointed downward toward the deck of the platform. Plaintiff, unable to break his fall, continued to fall once the last step collapsed, and he landed onto the deck of the platform on his lower back and buttocks.

13.

Plaintiff reported the accident to his tool pusher, Leonard Cheramie. Cheramie prepared an accident report, and then ordered Melvin Galloway and Johnny Whiddon to repair the step.

14.

Galloway and Whiddon cut off the old step and re-welded a new one onto the staircase beam.

15.

Dr. Marmande, plaintiff's first physician, diagnosed the injury as a lumbosacral strain.

16.

Dr. Marmande treated plaintiff until June 20, 1977, when he discharged plaintiff back to work. Plaintiff returned to Pool Rig 2, and worked light duty for approximately three months.

17.

Due to plaintiff's continued back pain, he sought treatment from Dr. Chris Cenac, a Houma, Louisiana orthopedic surgeon, on September 29, 1977. Treatment continued with Drs. Cenac, Burns and Chandler. In 1979, Dr. Chandler performed a laminectomy and disc surgery.

18.

Plaintiff moved to Gulfport, Mississippi. On September 22, 1979, he went to Gulf Coast Community Hospital after complaining of faintness and weakness in his legs. Local physicians Risch and Buckley performed a laminectomy and spinal fusion.

19.

Plaintiff has since moved back to Houma, Louisiana, and is again under the care of Dr. Cenac. Dr. Cenac testified that plaintiff will not be released until 18 months post fusion, or until April of 1981. Dr. Cenac further testified that plaintiff will have a 20 to 25 percent permanent partial disability. Dr. Cenac would classify plaintiff as a class five, or unemployable for oil field or manual labor type work.

20.

Dr. Cenac listed plaintiff's restrictions to consist of no repetitive bending, stooping or climbing, and no lifting of weights more than 50 pounds. Dr. Cenac further testified that plaintiff can expect to experience pain for the rest of his life.

21.

At the time of his accident, plaintiff was earning $7.36 per hour. Plaintiff worked 12 hours per day, with time and a half after 40 hours per week. Between May 10, 1976 and May 10, 1977, plaintiff earned $16,971.55.

22.

By stipulation, the parties agreed that Professor Harris would testify that a ¼ inch weld on the tread end of the step would have held a force of 2400 pounds in shear. It was further agreed that Mr. Harris' testimony would have revealed that he was not aware of any outside forces exerted on the stair between its construction and the accident. Additionally, he would have made no calculation and had no opinion concerning the stress imposed on the weld when struck by the plaintiff.

II. Conclusions of Law
1.

This Court has jurisdiction by virtue of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1333, et seq., as well as diversity of citizenship between the parties and jurisdictional amount.

2.

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act mandates that Louisiana law applies to fixed offshore structures, such as the South Timbalier Block 189A structure involved in this case. Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 395 U.S. 352, 89 S.Ct. 1835, 23 L.Ed.2d 360 (1969).

3.

Louisiana Civil Code Article 2322 (1870) provides that:

The owner of a building is answerable for the damage occasioned by its ruin, when this is caused by neglect to repair it, or when it is the result of a vice in its original construction.

Article 2322 imposes liability upon the owner of a building to persons injured through its "ruin", whether due to a vice in its original construction or through his neglect to repair it.

4.

"The owner's fault is founded upon the breach of his obligation to maintain or repair his building so as to avoid the creation of undue risk of injury to others. The owner is absolved from its strict liability neither by his ignorance of the condition of the building, nor by circumstances that the defect could not easily be detected. He is absolved for such liability only if the thing owned by him falls, not because of its defect, but rather because of the fault of some third person or of the person injured thereby, or because the fault is caused by an irresistible cause or force not usually foreseeable. Article 3556(14), (15), (usually an act occasioned exclusively by violence of nature without the interference of or contribution by any human agency)." Olsen v. Shell Oil Co., 365 So.2d 1285, 1288-1289 (La.1978).

The evidence in this case supports the conclusion that the plaintiff slipped and fell on the stairway while descending between the living quarters and the main deck. As plaintiff began his fall, his feet struck the bottom step, which gave way upon impact. It is true that the failure of the last step was not the sole cause of the damage, but the evidence supports the proposition that its failure directly, and in natural and continuous sequence, produced, or contributed substantially to produce, the damage. It can reasonably be said that, except for the failure of the last step, the injury or damage would not have occurred. It is clear that the failure of the last step operated in combination with another cause (plaintiff's initial slip) that occurred at essentially the same time and as part of the same event, and that such failure contributed substantially to producing the damage.

5.

The Chevron fixed drilling platform constitutes a building under Article 2322, and the stairway, once welded onto the platform, became an appurtenant structure to the building made immovable by attachment. Olsen v. Shell Oil Co., supra; Mott v. Odeco, 577 F.2d 273 (5th Cir. 1978).

6.

Chevron's inability to keep the staircase in good repair and plaintiff's injury were a direct result of a defective condition in the staircase, whether the defect was due to a defect in the original design or in the manufacture (or, as here, the modification of the staircase), or through a neglect to repair it. This Court finds that plaintiff has proven a "ruin" by a preponderance of the evidence and, therefore, Chevron's liability to plaintiff extends to damages resulting from the defect in this appurtenance, Champagne v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 605 F.2d 934 (5th Cir. 1979); Olsen v. Shell Oil Co., supra. This is true even though Pool may remain the owner of the staircase as between Pool and Chevron. Olsen v. Shell Oil Co., supra at 1290....

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Hyde v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • February 7, 1983
    ...Civil Code, that the injury was "occasioned" by the "ruin" of a building, for which Chevron was strictly liable. Hyde v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., E.D.La.1981, 514 F.Supp. 740. The court also held that an indemnity agreement Chevron had with its drilling contractor should not be construed to re......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT