Noel v. Freeport-McMoran Oil & Gas LLC

Filing 71

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's 67 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as unopposed. The case is hereby DISMISSED.Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 2/8/2017. (mmv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
WILLIAM NOEL, III

CIVIL ACTION

V.

NO. 15-2411

FREEPORT-MCMORAN
OIL & GAS, LLC, ET AL.

SECTION "F"
ORDER AND REASONS

Before

the

Court

is

the

defendant’s

motion

for

summary

judgment.
Local Rule 7.5 of the Eastern District of Louisiana requires
that memoranda in opposition to a motion be filed no later than
eight days before the noticed submission date.

No memorandum in

opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, noticed for
submission on February 8, 2017, has been filed.
I.
This is a slip and fall case that occurred while the plaintiff
worked on the MARLIN TLP operated by the defendant, Freeport. The
MARLIN TLP is located on the Outer Continental Shelf adjacent to
the State of Alabama. Given the location of the platform, the
defendant urges that Alabama state law applies. In support, the
defendant cites Danos & Curole Marine Contractors, Inc. v. BP
America Production Co., 61 F. Supp. 3d 679 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 19,
2014). The court in Danos determined what law applies to the same
MARLIN TLP platform applying the Fifth Circuit’s factors to decide
1

which state is “adjacent” for tort law purposes under OCSLA. See
Snyder Oil Corp. v. Samedan Oil Corp., 208 F.3d 521, 523-25 (5th
Cir. 2000); Danos, 61 F. Supp. 3d at 687-92. The record reflects
no objections to applying Alabama law, and the Court agrees with
the finding in Danos. Accordingly, this Court must apply Alabama
state law for the plaintiff’s tort claim. Under Alabama state law,
the

contributory

negligence

of

a

plaintiff

that

proximately

contributes to the plaintiff’s injuries bars recovery. Brown v.
Piggly-Wiggly Stores, 454 So. 2d 1370, 1372 (Ala. 1984).
The defendants urge that the plaintiff contributed to his
injuries and thus his claim should be barred. The plaintiff was
the executive steward in charge of food services on the platform.
He was responsible for his safety and had an obligation to inspect
his work areas and report unsafe conditions. On the day of the
accident,

he

performed

the

inspection

of

the

freezer

before

beginning to load it and did not identify any hazards.
At the time of the accident, the plaintiff worked to load the
freezer for over an hour and half before his fall occurred. The
plaintiff admits there was no condensation when the he began
loading the freezer. He also admits that the condensation likely
developed on the floor because he had the freezer door open while
working. He was even warned by colleagues that the freezer could
become slippery, but he did not take any precautions to enhance
2

his

footing

or

stop

working.

Importantly,

the

plaintiff

acknowledges that the condensation that led to his fall developed
while he was working because he left the freezer door open.
Therefore, his own conduct created the hazard that led to his
accident.
Applying Alabama law, the plaintiff is barred from recovery
under contributory negligence because the plaintiff contributed to
creating the hazard that caused his accident. See id.
Summary

judgment

under

Rule

56

is

plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law.

appropriate.

The

There is no genuine

issue of material fact as to whether Alabama law should apply or
whether the plaintiff’s negligence contributed to his accident.
II.
Accordingly,

the

motion

is

deemed

to

be

unopposed,

and

further, it appearing to the Court that the motion has merit, IT
IS ORDERED that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED as unopposed. The case is hereby DISMISSED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, February 8, 2017

______________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3