LAW.coLAW.co

KENNEDY v. BRASKEM AMERICA INCORPORATED LINDE (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-09-24No. No. 21-30198

Summary

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Kennedy's negligence claims against the defendants.

Daniel Kennedy, a foreman employed by a subcontractor, suffered workplace injuries on December 2, 2017, while installing foundation piles at a construction site. Kennedy brought a negligence action against the property owner, Braskem America, and the general contractor, LINDE Engineering North America, claiming they were responsible for his injuries. The defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the trial court granted, leading Kennedy to appeal.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Whether the district court properly dismissed Kennedy's negligence complaint
  • Liability of property owner and general contractor for subcontractor employee's workplace injuries

Procedural posture

Kennedy appealed the district court's grant of defendants' motions to dismiss in this negligence action arising from a workplace injury.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

On December 2, 2017, plaintiff Daniel Kennedy sustained injuries while working as a foreman for his employer, Cajun Deep Foundation, which had been subcontracted by LINDE Engineering North America, Inc. (“LENA”) to install auger cast in place piles on a construction site owned by Braskem America, Inc. (“Braskem”). As a result of those injuries, Kennedy filed a personal injury lawsuit against property owner Braskem and general contractor LENA, alleging that his injuries were caused by their negligence. The district court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss and this appeal followed. We have reviewed the briefs, applicable law, and relevant parts of the record. The district court conducted a careful and thorough analysis of the relevant legal issues and we find no reversible error.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

Per Curiam:*

FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.