“Hands-On, But Not Locked-Out” – Louisiana Supreme Court Narrows the Manual-Labor Exception to Independent Contractors Only

Introduction

On 27 June 2025 the Supreme Court of Louisiana decided McBride, Dowdy & Miller v. Old Republic Ins. Co., Woodard, Brooks & Enable Midstream Partners, LP, No. 2024-C-01519. The case arose from an explosion at Enable Midstream’s Magnolia natural-gas facility in Ringgold, Louisiana, during replacement of amine and glycol coolers by White Oak Radiator Service, Inc. White Oak’s crew members Joey Miller (employee) and Davy Dowdy (independent-contractor welder) were hurt and sued Enable in tort. Enable argued that Louisiana’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LWCL) barred the suit because the plaintiffs were “independent contractors” performing manual labor under La. R.S. 23:1021(7).

The Court rejected that defence, holding that:

The manual-labor exception applies only to the individual or entity that has a direct contract with the principal. Employees and sub-contractors of that independent contractor are not covered, and therefore retain their delictual (tort) remedies.

Besides clarifying this core statutory question, the Court re-apportioned comparative fault between Enable (70 %) and White Oak (30 %) and affirmed most of the damages awarded to Mr Dowdy. Two justices dissented in part on fault allocation and hearing-loss damages.

Summary of the Judgment

Workers’-comp exclusivity – The Court undertook a de-novo interpretation of La. R.S. 23:1021(7). It concluded that only a contractor who personally contracts with the principal and spends substantial work time in manual labor is limited to compensation benefits. The statute does not sweep in that contractor’s own labourers or hired hands. As a result, Dowdy and Miller could sue Enable in tort.
Comparative fault – Reviewing under the manifest-error standard, but correcting clear misallocation, the Court raised White Oak’s percentage of fault from 10 % to 30 %, leaving 70 % with Enable.
Damages – It affirmed awards for Dowdy’s hearing loss and cervical-spine injury, applying the Housley presumption (although now statutorily abrogated for future cases). Lumbar-spine damages had already been set aside by the appellate court and were not at issue.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

a. Court of Appeal decisions extending immunity

Lumar v. Zappe Endeavors (5th Cir. La. 2006) – treated an employee of an independent contractor as also covered by 1021(7).
Moss v. Tommasi Constr. (3d Cir. 2010); Orozco v. Filser Constr. (4th Cir. 2018); Courtney v. Fletcher Trucking (1st Cir. 2012) – similar reasoning. These cases suggested that when a contractor is immune, so are its labourers.

b. Opposite line of authority

Jorge-Chavelas v. Louisiana Farm Bureau, 917 F.3d 847 (5th Cir. 2019) – a federal “Erie guess” predicting that the Louisiana Supreme Court would confine the exception to the contractor only. Heavy reliance on statutory grammar (“by him”).
Second Circuit opinion below (McBride 55,772) – followed Jorge-Chavelas and created a direct split among Louisiana circuits, setting the stage for high-court review.

c. Other statutory-employment doctrines

La. R.S. 23:1061 – statutory employer (written contract recognising status); two-contract theory.
La. R.S. 23:1031(C) – borrowed-employee doctrine.
Foundational Supreme Court cases: Lushute v. Diesi (1977) explaining legislative purpose; Allen v. Morial Convention Center (2003) on statutory employer; Champagne (2013) on quid-pro-quo nature of LWCL.

2. Legal Reasoning

Statutory text controls – The Court applied civilian canons: clear text prevails (C.C. art. 9). The words “an independent contractor … by him in carrying out the terms of the contract” were read in the singular and tied to the presence of a contract with the principal. No parallel language covers “employees” or “other independent contractors.” In civilian method, the omission is presumed deliberate.
Definition of “contractor” – Resorting to dictionaries and IRS usage, a “contractor” is “one who contracts”; thus a person without privity of contract with Enable could not be its contractor.
Jurisprudence constante rejected – Although several appellate panels had applied the broader reading, the line was neither long nor uniform. Clear statutory text outweighed sporadic precedent.
Policy consistency – The Court distinguished between the policy of §1021(7) (preventing sham re-labelling of manual labourers as “independent contractors”) and §1061 (preventing principals from outsourcing core business without compensation responsibility). Only the latter deliberately extends immunity to third-party workers; the former does not.
Availability of alternative immunity – Principals can protect themselves by drafting a §1061 statutory-employer clause. Enable chose the opposite: its terms expressly disavowed any employment relationship.

3. Impact of the Decision

Immediate effect – Manual labourers who work for an independent contractor now retain full tort rights against the principal unless a separate statutory-employment relationship exists.
Contracting practice – Owners and industrial operators will likely revise master service agreements to insert §1061 language and require enrolment of all sub-tier workers in OCIP/CCIP workers’-comp programmes.
Insurance markets – CGL and excess carriers for premises owners may face higher exposure; conversely, workers’-comp carriers for contractors are spared claims from upstream principals.
Litigation posture – Plaintiffs’ counsel will focus on tort suits when a statutory-employer clause is absent or poorly drafted. Defendants will scrutinise chains of privity and manual-labour percentages.
Legislative prospect – Industry groups may seek to amend §1021(7) to re-extend immunity. The recent statutory abrogation of the Housley presumption (Act 18 of 2025) shows the Legislature’s willingness to refine compensation statutes rapidly.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Manual-Labor Exception (La. R.S. 23:1021(7)) – A manual-labourer who is an independent contractor is treated like an employee for workers’-comp purposes; he trades tort rights for guaranteed benefits.
Statutory Employer (§1061) – A principal becomes liable for, and immune from, injuries to someone else’s employees only if a written contract says so or the “two-contract” scenario applies.
Lockout/Tagout – OSHA procedure to isolate equipment energy sources so machinery cannot start or release energy while maintenance is performed.
Hot-Work Permit – Formal authorisation to weld, cut or grind in an area with potential flammables. Requires testing for explosive gases (LEL readings).
Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) – The minimum concentration of a vapor in air capable of ignition. Zero LEL means no flammable gas detected.
Comparative Fault (C.C. art. 2323) – Louisiana allocates percentages of blame to all actors; damage awards to plaintiffs are reduced by their or their employer’s share.
Housley Presumption – A factual inference that new symptoms after an accident were caused by it when plaintiff was previously healthy and medical evidence supports a reasonable link (now legislatively abolished prospectively).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Louisiana has delivered a decisive clarification: the manual-labor exception in §1021(7) is personal to the contracting independent contractor and does not immunise principals from tort suits brought by that contractor’s workers or sub-contractors. The ruling aligns textual fidelity with the historic civilian caution against eroding delictual rights without explicit legislative mandate.

For industry, the message is plain: if a principal wants workers’-comp exclusivity, it must secure it explicitly under §1061. For labourers, the decision restores the ability to seek full tort recovery for unsafe premises provided no statutory-employer contract stands in the way. Finally, by adjusting comparative-fault percentages and validating damage awards, the Court underscored that careful factual scrutiny accompanies its statutory holdings.

In sum, McBride v. Enable narrows immunity, broadens accountability, and recalibrates the allocation of workplace-injury risks in Louisiana’s energy and construction sectors.