Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Beulah Voisin Champagne v. Penrod Drilling Company

Beulah Voisin Champagne v. Penrod Drilling Co., 462 F.2d 1372 (5th Cir. 1972)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-07-31
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that a deceased worker was a borrowed servant and that the administrator of the worker’s estate therefore was entitled to claim the benefits of the LHWCA against the borrowing employer, but, consequently, was subject to the limitations on tort suits imposed by § 905(a)

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Beulah Voisin Champagne v. Penrod Drilling Company. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
5 opinions
CHAMPAGNE v. PENROD DRILLING COMPANY,462 F.2d 1372(5th Cir. 1972)
BEULAH VOISIN CHAMPAGNE ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. PENROD DRILLING
COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
No. 71-3204.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 31, 1972.
Wilson M. Montero, Jr., John R. Martzell, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.

W. K. Christovich, New Orleans, La., for Penrod.

Lawrence J. Ernst, New Orleans, La., W. Gerald Gaudet, Lafayette, La., for Terrebonne.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana; Edwin F. Hunter, Jr., Judge,341 F. Supp. 1282.
Before GEWIN, COLEMAN and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.
[1] ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM:
[2] In her petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc Beulah Voisin Champagne notes that this court erred in characterizing her action as one for damages under the Death on the High Seas Act. Although the complaint as originally filed sought damages under the Death on the High Seas Act, this court did fail to indicate that following the Supreme Court decision in Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company,395 U.S. 352,89 S.Ct. 1835,23 L.Ed.2d 360(1969) the complaint was amended so as to base jurisdiction exclusively on diversity of citizenship and to seek recovery solely under Louisiana law.

[3] This fact however in no way alters the result in this case. We remain of the view that whether LeBlanc be labeled a borrowed, rented or loaned employee the district court correctly applied the legal standards in determining that LeBlanc was an employee entitled to the benefits of the compensation statute against Penrod, but subject to the limitation imposed. Our decision in Probst v. Southern Stevedoring Company,379 F.2d 763(5th Cir. 1967) is clearly distinguishable from the present case because of the substantial difference in the relationship between the injured employee and the general contractor in that case and LeBlanc and Penrod here. To the extent indicated our opinion of April 25, 1972,459 F.2d 1042, is amended.

[4] The Petition for Rehearing is denied and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule35Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is denied.Page 1373