The Louisiana Supreme Court slashed a judge’s award of $1.9 million in damages to a man who “bear-hugged” a 245-pound fire extinguisher cylinder and accidentally caused it to discharge, creating a spinning menace that left him with extensive injuries and psychological trauma.
Not only were the damages too high, the state’s highest court ruled, but the trial judge should have assigned the majority of the blame to the plaintiff’s employer and the plaintiff himself, both of whom violated safety protocols by manhandling the dangerous cylinder. The trial judge instead assigned 100% of the blame to a contractor that was hired to inspect the fire-suppression system on an offshore oil rig.
Plaintiff Luis Malta was a warehouse worker for Wood Group Production Services, which operated the Black Bay Central Facility owned by Helis Oil and Gas Co. Helis hired the Hiller Cos. to inspect fire suppression systems and other safety equipment on its offshore platforms and in 2012 Hiller inspector Dray Hebert conducted a scheduled inspection on the Black Bay unit.
During the inspection, Herbert found a cylinder in a generator building with a zero pounds per square inch reading, but he determined it was actually full of fire suppressant chemical. Industry regulations don’t allow the removal of a cylinder until a replacement is available, so Hebert red-tagged the unit for servicing. In his written report, he said the cylinder had “0 PSI” and “needs to be sent in for recharge.”
Instead of sending in a work order for Hiller or another company to disconnect the cylinder and transport it for service, a Wood Group foreman told employees to do it themselves. They successfully removed the cylinder, lowered it onto a work boat and transported it to shore where Malta was waiting to bring it into the warehouse.
Witnesses said Malta got into the cargo basket and “bear-hugged the canister,” when it began to hiss, getting louder and faster. Malta tried to push it away, but the cylinder “went ballistic,” spinning out of control and throwing him seven feet in the air. He landed on his shoulder and suffered shoulder fractures, a fractured heel, a sprained ankle, disk herniation, and bruising.
After surgery, he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. The accident occurred six days before his wedding and to avoid losing deposits he attended the ceremony in a wheelchair.
Malta filed a Workers’ Compensation claim against Wood Group and sued Helis and Hiller. Helis settled, leaving the inspection company as the sole defendant. The trial judge found Hiller 100% liable for filing an incorrect report suggesting the cylinder was unpressurized when in fact it held dangerous amounts of gas. The judge awarded Malta $1.9 million in damages, including $50,000 to his son for loss of consortium.
An appeals court upheld the verdict and Hiller appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court. In a Dec. 10 decision, the state’s highest court found the trial court made multiple errors and awarded far too much money to Malta.
Hiller argued the lower courts improperly expanded its scope of duty to make it a guarantor of workplace safety its customer Wood Group when its only duty was to determine if the fire suppression equipment was in order and if not, tag it for servicing.
Louisiana law doesn’t provide such a bright line, the Supreme Court ruled. While Herbert testified he told Wood Group employees to be careful, his report could potentially have misled them into thinking the nitrogen propellant had leaked out instead of the possibility the pressure gauge was broken, the Supreme Court observed. Thus, the trial court didn’t err by concluding Hiller breached its duty to properly diagnose the condition of the cylinder, the court ruled.
The trial court also was permitted to decide the Wood Group foreman wouldn’t have ordered employees to remove the cylinder and transport it if he thought it was pressurized, the Supreme Court ruled. That meant Hiller’s incorrect report was a cause-in-fact of Malta’s injuries, or a “but-for” condition without which they wouldn’t have occurred.
The lower court erred by failing to account for Wood Group’s fault in allowing untrained employees handle a potentially dangerous cylinder, however, the high court ruled.
“Even if the cylinder was in fact empty, proper procedure and protocol in the industry regarding the handling of a cylinder still required that the cylinder be disconnected and transported in a certain manner,” the court said in a majority opinion by Chief Justice John Weimer.
Malta himself also bore some blame, the high court added. He “should have questioned his ability to single-handedly handle the cylinder, which had been previously transported by three Wood Group employees, especially since the cylinder had not been capped or placed in a rack.” Yet the 253-pound man lifted the 245-pound cylinder himself rather than issuing a stop-work order and waiting for help, the court noted.
The trial court must recalculate damages after assigning comparative fault to Wood Group and the plaintiff, the Supreme Court said, even though Wood Group, as an employer, is immune from tort liability because damages are paid by workers’ compensation. The court went on to rule that Hiller could be at most 40% responsible, while Wood Group was at least 55% responsible and Malta at least 5%.
The high court also found the damages excessive given the fact Malta returned to the work force within two years and had “made great strides” with his PTSD. The maximum award should be $675,000 for physical and psychological injuries, the court ruled. The loss of consortium claim also should be slashed to no more than $15,000, the high court said.
“The scant evidence related to this issue” shows the main effect of his injury was he stopped dirt-biking with his son, the court said.
“After the accident, plaintiff became very bitter and angry and treated his family horribly,” the court found, but now, “acording to plaintiff’s wife, plaintiff’s relationship with his son has greatly improved.”
Justice Jefferson D. Hughes dissented, saying the majority improperly substituted their opinion for the findings of the trial court. Hiller was hired to inspect the equipment and failed to notify Wood Group employees about the danger of a potentially charged cylinder, he said.
“We shouldn’t lose the forest for the trees,” he wrote. “The big picture: But for the negligence of the Inspector, this accident would not have happened.”