Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, COVERAGE, LIABILITY—5th Cir.: Tanker-trailer manufacturer not liable for injuries to tank washing company employee, (Jul 14, 2026)

By Leah S. Poniatowski, J.D.

Fifth Circuit affirms summary judgment favoring manufacturer and other companies, finding no error in dismissal of premise liability and products liability claims.

A federal district court’s ruling granting summary judgment on premise liability and failure to warn and design defect products liability claims was supported by the record and law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in an unpublished opinion, affirming the judgments against the employee of a tanker trailer cleaning company who had been severely burned when a tanker full of hot water not properly supported on a gravel surface tipped over (George v. SI Group, Inc., No. 25-40286 (5th Cir. July 9, 2026)).

Background. The company Veolia provides cleaning services for tanker trailers. Veolia maintained tankers with heating elements that when filled with water, could bring the water up to 200 degrees for use in cleaning. A vacuum truck would extrude the used water. Often, the vacuum truck would need to be emptied and the hot water tanker would need to be refilled during operations.

In 2016, SI Group hired Veolia to clean one of its tanker trailers. After the hot water tanker ran dry, Veolia employees worked to swap the empty one with a full tanker, but the air bag in the tractor went off. The driver and another employee consulted with their supervisor, who instructed them to disconnect the tractor and wait for a mechanic. The Veolia crew did not put down mats under the hot water tanker’s landing gear while it was parked on gravel, nor did they close the hatch on top of the hot water tanker.

One Veolia employee sat in the vacuum truck cab, which had its windows open, while waiting for the mechanic. Unfortunately, the hot water tanker tipped over after one of the legs of its landing gear sank into the gravel. Scalding water from the tank poured in through the open window, injuring the employee. He promptly exited the truck and went under the safety shower, and was treated for his injuries at the hospital.

He filed a premise liability claim against SI Group and products liability claims against Bulk Tank International (BTI), which manufactured the tanker trailer; Brenner Tank Services, L.L.C. (Brenner), which designed part of the tank; and Bulk Solutions, L.L.C. (Bulk), which distributed the tanker trailer.

Procedural history. The federal district court dismissed the employee’s claims against BTI, Brenner, and Bulk. The lower court also granted SI Group’s motion for summary judgment. The employee appealed, and, in 2022, the Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal and grant of summary judgment, and remanded the matter to the district court.

On remand, the district court dismissed the manufacturing-defect claims, but held that the employee had adequately pleaded the warning-defect and design-defect claims. The lower court also denied SI Group’s motion for summary judgment on the premise liability claim.

After the case was reassigned and additional discovery undertaken, SI Group filed a motion for reconsideration of summary judgment and for summary judgment on other grounds. The district court granted both of SI Group’s motions. Similarly, the lower court granted Bulk’s motion for summary judgment on the products liability claim, and Brenner and Bulk’s joint motion for summary judgment on the products liability claims. Finally, the court granted SI Group’s motion to exclude the employee’s expert witness testimony vis-a-vis SI Group’s knowledge of a dangerous condition. The employee filed the present appeal.

Premises liability. The appellate panel agreed with the lower court that the expert the employee proffered had no expertise or specific knowledge to testify as to whether SI Group had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition. Thus, exclusion of this testimony was not an abuse of the lower court’s discretion under the applicable procedural rules. Further, the employee did not identify the condition SI Group created which led to his injury, failing to meet the legal requirements of the claim. Finally, the employee did not establish that SI Group had any contractual or other legally recognized control over the safety practices of Veolia.

Products liability. As an initial matter, the appellate panel held that summary judgment favoring Bulk as a non-manufacturing seller was not challenged by the employee and, thus, he forfeited challenging that ruling.

With respect to the marketing defect/failure to warn claim, applicable law holds that suppliers have no duty to warn about risks that are commonly known to foreseeable users, even if some users are not aware of those risks. According to the record, placing a tanker trailer on its landing gear on a gravel surface with no stabilizing matting would create a commonly known and obvious risk. The commercial driver’s license handbook and Veolia’s own training showed that using mats when decoupling trailers is standard practice. In light of the record, the appellate panel determined that the lower court did not err to rule that there was not a duty to warn of the danger of decoupling the trailer on a gravel surface without mats.

On the design defect claim, under the applicable risk-utility analysis, the appellate panel found that none of the factors weighed in favor of the employee. For the first factor, especially in light of the fact that ordinary users know not to leave a tanker trailer on landing gear on gravel without some stabilizing support, the risk and degree of injury were not outweighed by likelihood of injury from use. As to the second and third factors, the safer alternative designs offered by the employee’s experts did not show that these designs would actually be safer, affordable, or not impair the usefulness of the tanker trailer. The final two factors weighed against the employee because the user of the trailer had knowledge about the dangers of gravel surfaces and the use of mats for stabilization on uneven surfaces. Therefore, the design of the tanker was not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law. Because the lower court made no error in granting summary judgment to SI Group, Bulk, and Brenner, those grants were affirmed.

The case is No. 25-40286.

Judge: Per Curiam.

Attorneys: Roland Christensen (Arnold & Itkin, L.L.P.) for James George. Jessica Z. Barger (Wright Close Barger & Guzman, L.L.P.) for SI Group, Inc. d/b/a Schenectady International, Inc. Dennis Robert Callahan (Freeman Mathis & Gary, L.L.P.) for Brenner Tank Services, L.L.C. and Bulk Solutions, L.L.C.

Companies: SI Group, Inc. d/b/a Schenectady International, Inc.; Brenner Tank Services, L.L.C.; Bulk Solutions, L.L.C.

Cases: CoverageLiability Safety LouisianaNews MississippiNews TexasNews GCNNews