Smith v. Vastar Resources Inc ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-31064
Summary Calendar
JAMES L. SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
VASTAR RESOURCES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CV-2440-C
--------------------
May 16, 2002
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James L. Smith appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment for Vastar Resources, Inc. in this civil action filed
under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). The
district court determined that the plaintiff’s deposition
testimony had failed to present sufficient proof as to whether
there was a foreign substance on the stairs which caused his knee
injury. Smith argues on appeal that the district court erred in
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 01-31064
-2-
granting summary judgment because his testimony and the
inferences to be drawn from it show that liability is clear
against the defendant. He contends that the sole issue on appeal
is whether the district court gave sufficient credence to his
testimony that oil or a chemical was on the stairwell, causing
him to slip. He argues that the district court ignored his
testimony that there was oil on his boots when he got home,
leading to the inference that there was oil on the stairs which
caused him to slip, even if he did not see it and could not state
truthfully that he knew it was there.
Smith does not know what caused him to slip, and he
testified that he never looked at the stairs or saw any foreign
substance on the stairs. The district court found that his
testimony that he must have picked up some oil on his shoes from
elsewhere on the platform was speculative. In his own
contemporaneous description of the incident, Smith stated that he
“twisted” his knee while walking down the stairway. He never
mentioned “slipping” or any oil or chemicals anywhere that might
have caused his shoes to be slippery. Three employees on the
platform submitted affidavits and/or declarations made under
penalty of perjury stating that the stairs were inspected
immediately following Smith’s accident and no foreign substance
was found which could have caused the accident. Smith has
presented no evidence to dispute their statements.
No. 01-31064
-3-
The only evidence Smith points to is his testimony about oil
on his shoes when he got home, and an oil leak from some
equipment on the platform near the stairs at some earlier
undetermined time which caused the stairs to be roped off, from
which he asks this court to infer causation. The district court
discounted the testimony about the stairs being roped off due to
an earlier leak because Smith’s deposition testimony did not
establish that the stairway had been roped off at any time
relevant to this alleged incident. Smith does not explain why, if
he had picked up some oil on his shoes on another part of the
platform, he did not slip closer to the area of the alleged leak.
He cannot even say that he actually knows that he stepped in
leaking oil or chemical on another part of the platform on that
day. He testified only that it was a “possibility” that oil or
chemical could have caused his foot to slip.
The district court did not err in its determination that
Smith’s testimony about what caused his knee injury was
speculative and insufficient as a matter of law to create a
genuine factual dispute for trial. See Thomas v. Grand Hyatt
Hotel, 749 F. Supp. 313 (D.D.C. 1990); Reese v. Tayco Food Store,
Inc., 602 So. 2d 260 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.