 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jones v. Compression Coat Corp. & Paul Laine & Co.11/2/2000
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PETERS, Judge.
This appeal involves the issue of borrowed employee status in the context of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U.S.C.A. ยง 901, et seq. The plaintiff, Louis Jones, appeals from an adverse summary judgment on the issue in favor of Lena Laine d/b/a Paul Laine Company, a defendant in the case.
DISCUSSION OF THE RECORD
Lena Laine d/b/a Paul Laine Company (PLC) was in the business of leasing cranes and barges to companies and providing bulkhead and erosion control services. Compression Coat Corporation (Compression Coat), an oilfield-related business, was in the business of coating pipes. In connection with its operations, Compression Coat leased a barge and crane from PLC. Pursuant to that lease, PLC provided Compression Coat with an LS-418 barge-mounted crane and an operator, Mark Hanks. Hanks' duties included using the crane to load pipe from a dock onto barges.
Louis Jones, who was working at the Compression Coat facility, claims he sustained injuries on July 25, 1994, when he became entangled in a tag line used in connection with the crane operations. He filed the instant suit for personal injury damages against Compression Coat and PLC. In his petition, Jones alleged that he was employed by Link Personnel Concepts, Inc. d/b/a Link Staffing Services (Link Staffing) as a longshoreman, that Link Staffing had assigned him to load the pipe onto the barge, and that he injured his back "when [Hanks] picked up on a pipe and caught in the sling which threw him into the water."
Link Staffing and The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, Link Staffing's workers' compensation carrier, (hereafter referred to collectively as intervenors) intervened in the suit, seeking reimbursement for payment of compensation benefits, medical expenses, mileage, and other expenses and a credit against the payment of any such items in the future.
Compression Coat filed a motion for summary judgment contending that Jones was its borrowed employee and that, therefore, he had no tort claim against it. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed Jones' claim and the petition for intervention against Compression Coat. Neither Jones nor the intervenors appealed that judgment.
Subsequently, PLC filed a motion for summary judgment contending that Hanks, its "nominal" employee, was also the borrowed employee of Compression Coat such that Jones and Hanks were co-employees. PLC contended, therefore, that Jones was precluded under the LHWCA from maintaining a tort action against it as the "nominal" employer of Hanks. The trial court granted PLC's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Jones' claim and the petition of intervention against it. It is from this judgment that Jones and the intervenors appeal.
OPINION
On appeal, the intervenors contend that the trial court erred in finding that Hanks was a borrowed employee of Compression Coat. Jones raises the same issue on appeal. However, Jones further contends that, even if Hanks were a borrowed employee of Compression Coat, the trial court still erred in dismissing his complaint against PLC because, under Morgan v. ABC Manufacturer, 97-0956 (La. 5/1/98); 710 So.2d 1077, the "dual employer" doctrine, which allows both the general employer and special employer to be solidarily liable for the torts of the borrowed employee, prevents PLC from asserting immunity for the negligence of Hanks.
In Morgan, Worktec Temporaries, Inc., which was in the business of hiring out temporary employees to other businesses, provided one of its employees, Daryl Hines, to Goldin Industries of Lou
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|