Jerry Franks, Sr. v. Hilcorp Energy I, L.P., No. 15-20286 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-20286 Document: 00513264056 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/09/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 15-20286 Summary Calendar FILED November 9, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JERRY L. FRANKS, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HILCORP ALASKA, LLC, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13-CV-2975 Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Hilcorp Alaska, LLC conducted oil exploration and drilling operations from its platform in the territorial waters of Alaska. Hilcorp as principal contracted with Williams-Southern to perform specialized services on the platform. In early July 2012, Hilcorp observed Williams-Southern employees lean a ladder against a shipment container. Hilcorp informed WilliamsSouthern this practice was unacceptable, and Williams-Southern removed the Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 15-20286 Document: 00513264056 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/09/2015 No. 15-20286 ladder. Then in late July 2012, plaintiff Jerry Franks Sr. an employee of Williams-Southern leaned a ladder against the container, fell, and injured himself. Franks brought suit against Hilcorp alleging both negligence and premises liability. The district court’s opinion is well-reasoned and has ample support. As principal, Hilcorp was not responsible for supervising the details of the independent contractor’s work. 1 By instructing a Williams-Southern employee on a previous occasion about a ladder, Hilcorp did not retain control over the work. 2 Moreover the facts of the accident belie any premises liability claim— the transitory fault of the sub-contractor and its employees do not give rise to a premises suit. 3 Accordingly, we AFFIRM essentially for the reasons given by the district court. See Petranovich v. Matanuska Elec. Ass’n, 22 P.3d 451, 454 (Alaska 2001). Id. 3 See Moloso v. State, 644 P.2d 205, 219 (Alaska 1982) (explaining any premises liability was extinguished by giving notice of danger to contractor). 1 2 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
