Coastal States Crude Gathering Co. v. Williams, 640
| Decision Date | 30 December 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 640,640 |
| Citation | 476 S.W.2d 339 |
| Parties | COASTAL STATES CRUDE GATHERING COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. Mrs. Ruby A. WILLIAMS et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Kleberg, Mobley, Lockett & Weil, Leslie S . Lockett, Corpus Christi, for Coastal States.
Dyer, Redford, Burnett, Wray, Woolsey & Dunham, Cecil Redford, Corpus Christi, for Pan Am Petroleum.
Edwards & DeAnda, William R. Edwards, Philip Maxwell, Corpus Christi, for Mrs. Williams and others.
Allison, Maddin, White & Brin, Guy Allison, Corpus Christi, Jon Newton, Wade & Traylor, Beeville, for Field Drilling.
This is an oil field fatality case. The action arose out of an accident that occurred on March 18, 1969, when Demprey Williams, while operating a bulldozer, struck a pipeline, resulting in a rupture of the line, a spillage of oil and a fire that claimed his life. Appellees, Mrs. Ruby Williams (surviving wife of decedent) and Mrs. Billie Ramsey (sole child of decedent) filed suit against Coastal States Crude Gathering Company, Pan American Petroleum Corporation and Field Drilling Company (hereinafter called 'Coastal States', 'Pan Am' and 'field', respectively) for damages alleged to have been sustained by them as a result of the accident that caused decedent's death. The pipeline that was struck was owned by Coastal States. Field had contracted with Pan Am to drill a well at a location near the pipeline. C. H. Harris (hereinafter called 'Harris') had contracted with Field to dig a water pit to be used in connection with the drilling of the well. Demprey Williams (hereinafter called 'Williams') was an employee of Harris.
Traders & General Insurance Company, the insurance carrier for Harris, intervened to recover benefits it had paid under the Texas Workmen's Compensation Law. All defendants sought indemnity from each other. Coastal States filed a cross-action against Pan Am and Field for damages to its pipeline and for the value of the oil that was lost.
Trial was to a jury. Judgment was entered in favor of Mrs. Ruby Williams, Mrs. Billie Ramsey and Traders & General Insurance Co. in the total amount of $177,121.84 against Coastal States and Pan Am, with Mrs. Williams recovering $147,798.21, Mrs. Ramsey recovering $17,477.58, and Traders & General recovering $11,846.05. The jury awarded $25,000.00 for conscious physical pain and mental anguish suffered by Williams. All pleas for indemnity were denied. Statutory contribution as provided by Article 2212, Vernon's Ann.Civ .St., was ordered as to payment of the judgment by Coastal States and Pan Am. Coastal States was denied recovery of any damage sought by its cross-action. Pan Am has appealed that portion of the judgment denying it recovery for indemnity against Field. Coastal States has appealed the judgment in its entirety.
The accident, made the basis of this suit, occurred on a portion of the Mary Ellen O'Connor Ranch, in Refugio County, Texas, situated to the south of Farm-to-Market Road 774 and to the east of Farm-to-Market Road 2678. At that time the part of the ranch immediately to the south of FM 774 and east of FM 2678 was under oil and gas lease to Humble Oil & Refining Company; south of the Humble lease is a Pan Am oil and gas lease (where the accident occurred and hereinafter called the 'O'Connor lease'); immediately south of and adjoining the O'Connor lease is Pan Am's oil and gas lease known as the El Oso Cattle Company lease (hereinafter called the 'El Oso Lease').
A map or plat (not drawn to scale) is incorporated herein that shows the area between roads FM 2678 and FM 774 that is traversed by the 8 and 10 pipelines, the route and location, the location of Wells 10 and 3 and on the El Oso lease and of Wells 1, 2, 17 and 30 on the O'Connor lease, the main lease road across the leases, the lateral lease roads to the above numbered wells (except Well 30), the site of the accident, and the pipeline markers on roads FM 2678 and FM 774, as follows:
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
Two pipelines owned by Coastal States, an 8 line and a 10 line, cross the aforesaid portion of the ranch. The 8 line is a high pressure gas transmission line that was built in 1942 by Sinclair and was purchased by Coastal States in 1964. The 10 line is a crude oil transmission line that was constructed by Coastal States in the summer of 1965. Both lines are almost parallel and in close proximity to each other. Generally speaking, they were about 60 feet apart. They were about 14 feet apart at the spot where the lines entered the O'Connor lease from the south and were about 43 feet apart at the site of the accident. The 10 line is east of the 8 line.
The easement for the 10 line was granted to Coastal States by Mary Ellen O'Connor on May 20, 1965. Pan Am acquired its oil and gas leases before May 20, 1965. On that date Wells 1 to 11 on the El Oso lease and Wells 1 to 23 on the O'Connor lease were then producing.
Until August, 1969, the employees of Pan Am who took care of the wells on both the El Oso and the O'Connor leases entered the O'Connor ranch at the 'Humble Gate' on FM 774. They travelled the private Humble main lease road through the Humble lease to Pan Am's leases. Pan Am constructed its own system of roads on its leases. Lateral roads extended out from its main road to each producing well . There were no public roads on the ranch between FM 774 and FM 2678.
There were pipeline signs, painted fence posts and vent pipes (installed and maintained by Coastal States) at the places where both the 8 and the 10 pipelines entered and exited that portion of the ranch bound by FM 2678 on the east and by FM 774 on the north. These markers were on both sides of the roads and were plainly visible to anyone travelling thereon. Coastal States did not have any pipeline markers, painted fence posts or vent pipes at any place on either of the O'Connor or El Oso leases, though it did have a cathodic protection test lead on the El Oso lease near the common boundary between these two leases. The 8 line was marked by Coastal States in several places where it crossed some of Humble's lateral lease roads. Pan Am's employees did not know of the markings on these Humble lease roads.
It is approximately 19,000 feet from the point where the two pipelines cross FM 2678 to the place where they intersect FM 774. It is some 3,500 feet across the El Oso lease, about 4,500 feet across the O'Connor lease and approximately 9,000 feet across the Humble lease. The site of the accident is about 1,000 feet south of the north line of the O'Connor lease, about 1,500 feet east of the west line of the lease, and about 3,500 feet north of the common boundary between the O'Connor and the El Oso leases. There were no lateral roads leading west from Pan Am's main lease road to the area of Well 30 until a few days before the accident when a road was built to the staked location.
Well 30 was staked by Lester Cole, Pan Am's surveyor, at a point 125 feet east of the 8 line. the 8 line was flagged by him. Both the stake marking the well location and the flag marking the 8 pipeline were pointed out to Mr. Edwards, the toolpusher for Field, by Mr. Davlin, Pan Am's field foreman, on the morning of the accident. The location of the water pit, which was to be used in drilling the well, was then selected by Edwards. Williams, in the presence of both Davlin and Edwards, outlined the perimeter of the pit on the ground by use of his bulldozer's blade. No one suggested a different location for the pit. Davlin stated that he did not know that the 10 line was in the area. Neither Edwards, Harris nor Williams knew of the existence of the 10 line. The location of the water pit was over the 10 line. At that point, the 10 line was 43 feet east of the 8 line and was buried to a depth of about 42 inches below ground level. In digging the pit, the blade of the bulldozer struck the 10 line, causing a rupture in the line. Oil spilled in the excavation and on the bulldozer. The oil ignited, Williams was set afire and died about one minute thereafter.
We shall first consider Pan Am's appeal, which is predicated on seven points of error. The first point assigns as error the overruling by the trial court of Pan Am's motion to disregard and set aside the jury's finding (special issue 13) that a pumper, field foreman or area foreman of Pan Am knew the route and location of the 10 pipeline on the O'Connor lease at any time before the accident. It argues that there is no evidence to support this fact finding. We do not agree.
The jury found that Pan Am knew of the existence, route and location of the 10 pipeline on the O'Connor lease. It further found that the failure of Pan Am to give Williams any adequate and proper warning of the location of the 10 pipeline and the failure to provide him with a reasonably safe place to work were each a proximate cause of the accident. There are also findings that Pan Am failed to exercise proper care to preserve such information about the 10 pipeline for later use, and that this was a proximate cause, but not the sole proximate cause, of the occurrence in question.
According to Pan Am's standard operating procedure, each pumper was required to report to his field foreman anything that happened on the lease, and, in turn, each field foreman was required to report such occurrences to his area foreman, who was then required to transmit such information through channels to the 'title survey' department of Pan Am, where notation thereof would be made. No one connected with Pan Am made any report to his immediate superior of any activity at any time on either the O'Connor or the El Oso lease incidental to Coastal States' 10 pipeline route, location or construction across these leases.
In August and September 1965, an independent contractor for Coastal States built that section of the 10 line across the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Official Committee v. Coopers & Lybrand
...the other one was passively negligent. See Hubbard v. Gehring, 360 S.W.2d 787, 797-98 (Tex.1962); Coastal States Crude Gathering Co. v. Williams, 476 S.W.2d 339, 349-51 (Tex.Civ. App.1971). Even assuming the analogy between joint tortfeasors and the parties to this appeal is an appropriate ......
-
Kelley v. General Telephone Company of the Southwest
...Petroleum Co., 482 S.W.2d 291 (Tex.Civ.App., Amarillo 1972, writ ref'd n. r. e.) ; Coastal States Crude Gathering Co. v. Williams, 476 S.W.2d 339 (Tex.Civ.App., Corpus Christi 1971, writ ref'd n. r. e.) ; Dees v. El Paso Products Co., 471 S.W. 2d 630 (Tex.Civ.App., El Paso 1971, writ ref'd ......
-
Traylor v. Gray
...exist in the one whose wrong was only a secondary one. Strakos v. Gehring, supra; Coastal States Crude Gathering Company v. Williams, 476 S.W.2d 339 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.); South Austin Drive-In Theatre v. Thomison, 421 S.W.2d 933 We have specifically found th......
-
St. John v. Barker
...L Company, Inc., 519 S.W.2d 142 (Tex. Civ. App.--Amarillo 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Coastal States Crude Gathering Co. v. Williams, 476 S.W.2d 339 (Tex. Civ. App.--Corpus Christi 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Rule 328, Texas Rules of Civil Our affirmance of Durham's factual sufficiency point re......