1. Is the owner liable for harm caused to a third person by the negligence of the employees of an independent contractor when the owner retains control over the performance of the work that has given rise to the injury?

2. Did Noble Drilling retain control over the performance of the work that gave rise to Mark McLaurin’s injury?

Mark McLaurin was employed as a carpenter by Friede Goldman Offshore, Inc. Noble Drilling, Inc., contracted with Friede Goldman (FG) to refit one of its offshore drilling rigs, the “Noble Clyde Boudreaux,” at FG’s Jackson Country, Mississippi, facility. On July 30 and 31, 2002, McLaurin was assigned by Friede Goldman to construct scaffolding inside one of the pontoon extensions. A crane, operated by Friede Goldman employees, was in the process of lowering the roof structure of the pontoon for final placement. McLaurin was injured when he placed his hand in a “pinch point”—a space between two objects—while the roof was being lowered. McLaurin suffered a severely crushed left hand and arm. He received medical benefits and disability compensation from FG under the Longshore Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Maritime workers are also allowed to pursue separate claims against third parties responsible for their injuries, and McLaurin sued Noble Drilling for negligence. Noble Drilling sought the dismissal of the case asserting that it was not responsible for the negligence of the employees of an independent contractor.

JUDICIAL OPINION

GUIROLA, J.… McLaurin’s supervisor testified that Noble never told any members of his crew what to do and that he had “total control over my crew.” McLaurin himself testified that no one from Noble instructed him to perform his work, and it was one of his Friede Goldman supervisors who told him to work inside the pontoon extension.

Reviewing all of this evidence, the Court finds that it is insufficient to create a jury question as to whether Noble had substantial de facto control over the work performed on the pontoon extension. Although Noble and Friede Goldman cooperated in planning and completing the project, it is clear that Friede Goldman retained ultimate decision-making authority to direct the day-to-day work and activities of its own employees. It was Friede Goldman that established the procedure to complete the pontoon extension work, and Friede Goldman had responsibility for the manner of completion of the work. Only Friede Goldman employees were involved in fitting the shelf on the pontoon extension at the time of McLaurin’s injury.

The mere fact that Noble could observe, inspect and make recommendations does not establish that it had substantial de facto control over this operation.… The testimony noted by the Court above tends to show that Noble was neither expected nor allowed to direct the work of Friede Goldman’s employees. Furthermore, there is no evidence that a Noble employee was present to observe the unsafe placement of McLaurin’s hand in the pontoon extension.… Judgment for Noble Drilling Inc.