Ross v. Docks, et al

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.
1Pourthau Industries is variously referred to in the record as
“Pourthau Industries,” “Porthau Industries,” and “Pourteau
Industries.” This opinion uses the name as stated in the district
court caption.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
July 27, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Fifth Circuit
No. 05-30970
STEPHEN T. ROSS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
POURTHAU INDUSTRIES AND ALBRET DOCKS,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(2:03-CV-1237)
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Stephen T. Ross (“Ross”) appeals the district
court’s final judgment granting summary judgment to Defendants
Pourthau Industries1 and Albret Docks (collectively, “Albret”) on
Ross’s Louisiana products liability claims. Ross was injured when

-- 1 of 2 --

2Ross used an F Dock, designed for use in the engine area, in the
cargo area.
2
he fell from an aircraft maintenance dock manufactured by Albret.
He brought suit against Albret in district court, alleging that the
maintenance dock manufactured by Albret was unreasonably dangerous
under Louisiana Revised Statutes Annotated section 9:2800.54.
Specifically, Ross alleged (1) that the dock was unreasonably
dangerous in design under section 9:2800.56 because the locking
pins used to hold the retractable panels in place were too small,
too short, and too hard to see and (2) that the dock was
unreasonably dangerous because an adequate warning about the
dangers associated with the locking pins was not provided as
required by section 9:2800.57. The district court granted summary
judgment in Albret’s favor after concluding that Ross’s use of the
maintenance dock was not reasonably anticipated and that the danger
of using the maintenance dock in the manner in which Ross did was
obvious to an ordinary user.2
Having carefully reviewed the record, the briefs, and the oral
argument of the parties, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district
court essentially for the reasons stated therein.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --