Dupre v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.

Fifth Circuit

Dupre v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.

109 F.3d 230, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 10173, 1997 WL 126579

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 4, 1997

Docket96-30704

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 109 F.3d 230 (Dupre v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dupre v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 109 F.3d 230, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 10173, 1997 WL 126579 (5th Cir. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Following the initial appeal in this case, we remanded it to the district court and directed that court to determine whether, under the facts of this case, Chevron owed Dupre a duty. Dupre v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 20 F.3d 154 (5th Cir.1994). The district court considered that question and answered it in the negative. Dupre then prosecuted this appeal seeking review of that judgment.

We are persuaded that our decisions in Olsen v. Shell Oil Co., 561 F.2d 1178, 1187-90 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 979, 100 S.Ct. 480, 62 L.Ed.2d 405 (1979), Bourg v. Texaco Oil Co., Inc., 578 F.2d 1117, 1121 (5th Cir.1978), and Romero v. Mobil Expl. & Prod’g, N. Am., Inc., 939 F.2d 307, 310-11 (5th Cir.1991), control this case. We agree with the district court that the regulations adopted pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) provide no basis for an implied cause of action against Chevron; nor do those regulations create an independent duty under Louisiana law on the part of Chevron, the platform owner and principal, to protect a contractor’s employee from hazards created by the contractor. See Graham v. Amoco Oil Co., 21 F.3d 643, 648 (5th Cir.1994); Ainsworth v. Shell Offshore, Inc., 829 F.2d 548, 550-51 (5th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1034, 108 S.Ct. 1593, 99 L.Ed.2d 908 (1988). Finally, we reject Dupre’s argument that Chevron contractually assumed a duty of reasonable care with respect to the Sundowner rig under the terms of its lease with the United States, which incorporated the federal regulations. That argument depends on this court finding that the OCSLA regulations themselves create a duty under Louisiana negligence law, a position rejected in Romero, 939 F.2d at 311.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Following the initial appeal in this case, we remanded it to the district court and directed that court to determine whether, under the facts of this case, Chevron owed Dupre a duty. Dupre v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 20 F.3d 154 (5th Cir.1994). The district court considered that question and answered it in the negative. Dupre then prosecuted this appeal seeking review of that judgment.

We are persuaded that our decisions in Olsen v. Shell Oil Co., 561 F.2d 1178, 1187-90 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 979, 100 S.Ct. 480, 62 L.Ed.2d 405 (1979), Bourg v. Texaco Oil Co., Inc., 578 F.2d 1117, 1121 (5th Cir.1978), and Romero v. Mobil Expl. & Prod’g, N. Am., Inc., 939 F.2d 307, 310-11 (5th Cir.1991), control this case. We agree with the district court that the regulations adopted pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) provide no basis for an implied cause of action against Chevron; nor do those regulations create an independent duty under Louisiana law on the part of Chevron, the platform owner and principal, to protect a contractor’s employee from hazards created by the contractor. See Graham v. Amoco Oil Co., 21 F.3d 643, 648 (5th Cir.1994); Ainsworth v. Shell Offshore, Inc., 829 F.2d 548, 550-51 (5th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1034, 108 S.Ct. 1593, 99 L.Ed.2d 908 (1988). Finally, we reject Dupre’s argument that Chevron contractually assumed a duty of reasonable care with respect to the Sundowner rig under the terms of its lease with the United States, which incorporated the federal regulations. That argument depends on this court finding that the OCSLA regulations themselves create a duty under Louisiana negligence law, a position rejected in Romero, 939 F.2d at 311.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 F.3d 230, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 10173, 1997 WL 126579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dupre-v-chevron-usa-inc-ca5-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack