-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________ m 01-60220 Summary Calendar _______________ JOHNNY W. HARTFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION; LEAF RIVER FOREST PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants-Appellees. _________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (2:99-CV-295) _________________________ September 21, 2001 Before JONES, SMITH, and Johnny Hartfield appeals a summary judg- EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. ment dismissing his personal injury action against Georgia Pacific Corp. (“Georgia Paci- JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:* fic”) and Leaf River Forest Products, Inc. (“Leaf River”). The district court ruled that Hartfield was a borrowed servant under Mississippi law and therefore that the * defendants are sheltered from liability by the Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has provision of workers’ compensation benefits determined that this opinion should not be by Manpower, Inc. (“Manpower”), the em- published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. ployer from whom Hartfield was borrowed. 47.5.4. The court also held that Georgia Pacific is not liable for negligence with regard to the forklift N. Elec. Co. v. Phillips,
660 So. 2d 1278that was the cause of Hartfield’s injury, (Miss. 1995), which concluded that an because Georgia Pacific introduced affidavits employer using workers from an employment showing that it did not own the forklift at the agency was immune from suit by virtue of time of injury, which evidence Hartfield did employment agency’s provision of workers’ not contradict. Finding no error, we affirm, compensation insurance.1 Where one is essentially for the reasons stated by the district employed by two employers in relation to the court in its comprehensive opinion of February same act , or in which the employee is a 5, 2001. “borrowed employee” of one employer from the other, both employers are exempt from lia- I. bility for workplace negligence actions, “al- Hartfield was an employee of Manpower, though only one of them has provided an employment placement agency, which had workmen’s compensation insurance.” Honey a contract with Leaf River to supply v. United Parcel Serv.,
879 F. Supp. 615, 618 employees. Under this contract, Hartfield was (S.D. Miss. 1995). Accordingly, there can be placed at Leaf River as a forklift operator and no recovery from Leaf River. reported to, and was under the direction of, Leaf River’s supervisors, similarly to III. employees hired directly by Leaf River, but he Hartfield also appeals the summary was paid by Manpower, which maintained judgment in favor of Georgia Pacific, arguing workers’ compensation insurance coverage on that he should be allowed to go to trial on the Hartfield. issues of (1) whether Georgia Pacific provided Leaf River with a defective forklift and Hartfield was injured on October 31, 1996, (2) whether the forklift was owned by Georgia when the fuel tank on the forklift he was oper- Pacific. Citing cases from other jurisdictions, ating exploded, allegedly from a defective Hartfield contends that any negligence of valve. Manpower’s workers’ compensation Georgia Pacific, as corporate grandparent of policy provided payments to Hartfield, who Leaf River, is not immunized by Manpower’s continued to work at Leaf River as a forklift provision of workers’ compensation insurance, operator for seven months. because Hartfield was borrowed by Leaf River, not Georgia Pacific. Hartfield argues II. that, therefore, if he can prove that Georgia Hartfield sued Georgia Pacific and Leaf River, a wholly owned subsidiary. In Mississippi, workers’ compensation is the 1 exclusive remedy against one’s employer for “Summary judgment is appropriate [under the ‘borrowed servant’ doctrine] where a temporary on-the-job injuries. MISS. CODE ANN. 71-3-9. employment agency assigns an employee to another Utilizing the appropriate test under Mississippi employer and the employee performs the normal law, the district court held that Hartfield was work of the second employer and is controlled and a borrowed employee and therefore that Leaf supervised by that employer. In Mississippi, one River is immune from suit, because may be employed by more than one employer and Manpower’s workers’ compensation insurance both employers gain immunity from common-law covered Hartfield. The court closely followed negligence actions.” N. Elec., 660 So. 2d at 1282. 2 Pacific’s negligence caused his injuries, he may pursue a claim against it. Hartfield seizes on the fact that the forklift was purchased by Georgia Pacific. Because Georgia Pacific was not involved in any of the operations at the Leaf River facility, however, Hartfield may pursue a claim against Georgia Pacific for negligence in maintaining the fork- lift only if Georgia Pacific owned the forklift or had some duty to maintain it for Leaf River. Recognizing this requirement, the district court granted summary judgment for Georgia Pacific because Georgia Pacific had provided affidavits stating that the forklift had been transferred to Leaf River before Hartfield’s in- jury. Hartfield produced no evidence disputing these affidavits but instead argues, without reference to authority, that “[w]ithout a bill of sale or any other document, the Court should find the title to the forklift remained in [Georgia Pacific].” This argument is without merit. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment included sworn affidavits stating that Leaf River owned the forklift. Once defendants presented this properly supported motion, Hartfield was required to “bring forward ‘significant probative evidence’ demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact.” In re Mun. Bond Reporting Antitrust Litig.,
672 F.2d 436, 440 (5th Cir. 1982). Hartfield pro- duced no evidence disputing the ownership of the forklift, but only complained that the defendants had not provided evidence of own- ership in a form he preferred. This is not sufficient to show a genuine issue of fact. AFFIRMED. 3
Document Info
Docket Number: 01-60220
Filed Date: 9/24/2001
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021