## Facts

- Multiple oil-rig workmen were injured, and others were killed, in an oil-field blowout followed by a flash fire in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.
- The victims and survivors filed consolidated suits against numerous entities involved with the drilling operation, including Cameron Iron Works, Inc. (Cameron), the manufacturer of a blowout preventer (BOP) installed on the well.
- Plaintiffs alleged the BOP was defective and that the defect contributed to the blowout and resulting fire and injuries.
- Cameron moved for summary judgment on causation grounds, asserting that the BOP—defective or not—could not have affected the outcome because it was never activated and could not have been activated at the time of the incident.
- Cameron supported its motion primarily with the deposition of Matthews Cormier, Amoco’s drilling foreman, who testified that the BOP was never activated and that a device called the kelly was in the hole, preventing activation of the BOP.
- Plaintiffs sought to rely on depositions from two witnesses (reported as Emile Durr, Jr. and Stephen Barnard) to contradict Cormier’s account by suggesting the kelly was not in the hole and that the BOP could have been engaged.
- The trial court did not admit those depositions at the summary-judgment hearing, and plaintiffs did not make a proper proffer to place the excluded depositions into the record for appellate review.
- The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing Cameron from the consolidated actions, and plaintiffs appealed that dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment in favor of Cameron was proper when the only competent evidence in the record showed the BOP was never activated and could not have been activated because the kelly was in the hole.
2. Whether plaintiffs could obtain appellate review of the trial court’s refusal to admit their witness depositions where plaintiffs did not make a proper proffer of the excluded evidence.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, affirmed the summary judgment dismissing Cameron.
- Cormier’s deposition established that the BOP was not activated and could not have been activated under the conditions at the time of the blowout and fire.
- Because plaintiffs did not introduce admissible evidence contradicting Cormier on activation/ability to activate, they failed to show a genuine issue of material fact on causation as to Cameron.
- The appellate court declined to consider the excluded witness depositions because plaintiffs did not preserve them in the record through a proper proffer.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is appropriate when the mover produces evidence showing there is no genuine issue of material fact and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; once supported, the opposing party must produce competent evidence showing a triable factual dispute.
- A products-liability claim requires proof of a causal connection between the alleged defect and the injury; if the product was not used (and could not have been used) in a way that could affect the event, causation may fail as a matter of law on the record presented.
- An appellate court reviews summary judgment based on the record before it; evidence not admitted into the record generally cannot be considered on appeal.
- When a trial court excludes evidence, the party seeking review must make an offer of proof (proffer) to preserve the substance of the excluded material; without a proffer, the exclusion ordinarily presents nothing for appellate review.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of Cameron because the only admissible evidence showed the blowout preventer was never activated and could not have been activated due to the kelly’s position, and plaintiffs’ failure to properly place contradictory depositions into the record left no genuine issue of material fact on causation.


Jeffers v. Amoco Production Co., 405 So. 2d 1227 (1981)