## Facts

- Mission Viking owned a cargo vessel being converted for offshore drilling and hired multiple contractors, including Avondale Shipyards, Inc. and Technical Sea Services.
- Avondale furnished a pedestal crane and a qualified crane operator to perform lifts for all work crews on the vessel, including other contractors’ employees.
- The established practice was that the contractor requesting a lift would supply workers to hook the load and signal or direct the crane operator.
- Anthony J. Melerine, Jr., a welder/fitter employed by Technical, assisted his foreman in moving a heavy mooring bitt using Avondale’s crane.
- Because the crane operator could not see the load, Melerine acted as the signalman.
- While attempting to guide the suspended load past a scaffold, Melerine was injured.
- Melerine and Technical’s compensation carrier sued Avondale, alleging negligent crane operation and failure to comply with OSHA crane and safety regulations.
- After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for Avondale; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether OSHA regulations create an implied private cause of action or establish negligence per se against a non-employer third party in a tort suit.
2. Whether OSHA regulations define a contractor’s duty of care toward employees of another employer on the same worksite.
3. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding Avondale not negligent under non-OSHA negligence principles.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Avondale.
- OSHA regulations do not create an implied private cause of action and do not constitute negligence per se in tort litigation.
- OSHA regulations do not establish a standard of care owed by one employer to employees of another employer.
- The court found no clear error in the district court’s determination that Avondale was not negligent on the evidence apart from OSHA.

## Legal Principles

- OSHA provides administrative and penal enforcement mechanisms; it does not create an implied private right of action for damages.
- An OSHA violation is not negligence per se; at most, OSHA may be admissible as evidence of the standard of care an employer owes its own employees.
- OSHA regulations “establish no standard of care due third persons,” including employees of other independent contractors.
- Appellate review of a bench trial’s negligence findings is for clear error; where the trial court’s findings are supported by the record, judgment is affirmed.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that an injured worker employed by one contractor could not use OSHA to impose tort liability on another contractor: OSHA creates no private damages remedy, does not support negligence per se, and does not define duties owed to other employers’ employees; the court also upheld the trial court’s finding that Avondale was not negligent under ordinary negligence principles.


Melerine v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 659 F.2d 706 (5th Cir. 1981)