Reported / Citable
Background
Kevin Cooley alleged that, while working as an engineer on BP Exploration & Production, Inc.’s Thunder Horse platform, his coveralls caught on protruding metal in a hallway, causing him to fall and suffer injuries. He sued BP and several contractors, including Mistras Group, Inc., for negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence.
Cooley alleged that Mistras and other contractors were performing maintenance near the crew-quarter floors around the time of the incident. Mistras, however, presented evidence that it had been hired for outdoor sandblasting, coating, and painting work and had only helped move trash bags from the living quarters before a hurricane.
The Court’s Holding
Judge David Hittner granted Mistras’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of Cooley’s claims against Mistras. Under OCSLA, the parties agreed that Louisiana law supplied the relevant negligence law.
The court held that Cooley failed to raise a genuine dispute that Mistras owed him a duty. Mistras did not employ or supervise Cooley, share a contract with his employer, or undertake responsibility for floor safety. Its limited assistance moving trash did not, under the Louisiana Supreme Court’s undertaking analysis in Pickard, establish a duty to inspect or ensure the safety of the crew-quarter floors.
Key Takeaways
- A contractor’s narrow task of moving trash did not create a duty to inspect nearby flooring for hazards.
- Under the applicable Louisiana rule, independent contractors generally do not owe duties to another contractor’s employee absent employment, a shared contract, or actual supervision.
- Because Cooley did not establish a duty, the court did not reach Mistras’s alternative argument that it did not breach a duty.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a contractor’s presence at an offshore worksite, or its performance of a limited ancillary task, does not itself establish tort responsibility for hazards associated with another contractor’s work. Plaintiffs relying on an assumed-duty theory must offer evidence addressing the scope of the undertaking, authority, and intent—not merely that the contractor performed some work in the vicinity.