Hunter v. Danos & Curole Mrne

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
August 8, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-30108
Summary Calendar
BENNIE E. HUNTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DANOS & CUROLE MARINE
CONTRACTORS, L.L.C.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-848-F
--------------------
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bennie E. Hunter (Hunter) appeals from the district court’s
order granting summary judgment to Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon).
Hunter alleges that Exxon is liable for his injuries sustained
while working on an offshore drilling platform that is owned in
part and operated by Exxon. Hunter was employed by an independent

-- 1 of 2 --

2 G:\opin-sc\03-30108.opn.wpd
contractor hired by Exxon to perform ongoing maintenance work on
the drilling platform.
We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion
and find no error. Exxon did not control the activity in which
Hunter was engaged when he was injured. See Redinger v. Living,
Inc., 689 S.W.2d 415, 418 (Tex. 1985). Hunter’s accident was not
caused by Exxon’s negligence or hidden premises defects on the
Hoover-Diana platform. See Shell Chem. Co. v. Lamb, 493 S.W.2d
742, 746-47 (Tex. 1973). Consequently, Exxon is not liable for
Hunter’s injuries as a matter of law. See Thomas v. Internorth,
Inc., 790 F.2d 1253, 1255 (5th Cir. 1986).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --