Fiscus v. Atlantic Richfield

• Decision Date: 11 May 1989
• Docket Number: No. 88-218,88-218
• Parties: Sharon E. FISCUS and Dewayne Wuestenberg, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD, a Delaware corporation, formerly a Pennsylvania corporation, Appellee (Defendant).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 158

773 P.2d 158

Sharon E. FISCUS and Dewayne Wuestenberg, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD, a Delaware corporation, formerly a Pennsylvania corporation, Appellee (Defendant).

No. 88-218.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

May 11, 1989.

Petition for Reargument and Rehearing Denied June 27, 1989.

J. Douglas McCalla, Spence, Moriarity & Schuster, Jackson, for appellants.

Patrick R. Day, Holland & Hart, Cheyenne, Jane Michaels, Geraldine A. Brimmer, and Russell S. Jones, Denver, Colo., for appellee.

Before CARDINE, C.J., and THOMAS, URBIGKIT, MACY and GOLDEN, JJ.

THOMAS, Justice.

Our task in this case is to ascertain whether there exists any genuine issue of material fact which would prevent the entry of summary judgment against Sharon E. Fiscus and DeWayne Wuestenberg (Appellants) in their action to recover damages for injuries to Fiscus. They contend that Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) assumed affirmative duties with respect to safety at the Black Thunder Mine where Fiscus worked and that it owned the piece of heavy equipment (an earth-moving scraper) that Fiscus was operating when she was injured while working. Appellants insist that the record demonstrates genuine issues with respect to material facts from which an independent duty owed to Appellants by ARCO could be found. We agree with the conclusion of the trial court that Appellants failed to demonstrate any genuine issue of material fact and that ARCO was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The summary judgment entered in favor of ARCO is affirmed.

Appellants state the issues in this case to be:

"I. Did the district court err in granting summary judgment to the defendant when there existed a genuine issue of material fact as to defendant's assumption of affirmative duties with respect to safety?

"II. Did the district court err in granting summary judgment to the defendant despite defendant's ownership of the device that injured Sharon Fiscus?

ARCO sets forth only a single issue:

"I. Did the district court correctly decide that plaintiff had failed to come forward with any material facts demonstrating that ARCO had assumed a duty to the plaintiff as a matter of law?"

This case comes before the court for the second time. In the first instance, the court addressed the dismissal of Appellants' complaint. We held that ARCO, the parent corporation of Thunder Basin Coal Company (Thunder Basin) and an independent entity, was not immune from suit because of the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act. We also held that Appellants' allegations of independent acts of negligence were sufficient to state a cause of action. Consequently, the court reversed the order of the trial court granting ARCO's Motion to Dismiss and remanded the case for further proceedings. Fiscus v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 742 P.2d 198 (Wyo.1987).

In the continuing saga, ARCO filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. ARCO supported its motion by affidavits and other discovery materials establishing that there was no genuine issue of material fact and asserted it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The district court ruled that Appellants had failed to respond sufficiently to the summary judgment materials of ARCO and, pursuant to Rule 56, W.R.C.P., granted summary judgment against them. This appeal follows from that summary judgment.

In support of their claim of an independent duty on the part of ARCO, Appellants emphasize their record presentation of certain evidence which they assert demonstrates genuine issues of material facts. They point to the Wyoming Workers Compensation Division record showing Sharon Fiscus to be an employee of ARCO and that the benefits she received came from ARCO's Wyoming workers' compensation account. They rely upon the fact that ARCO retained a fifty percent (50%) overriding royalty interest in the mine, and they mark the fact that the Bureau of Land Management continues to refer to mining leases relating to the Thunder Basin's Black Thunder Mine as jointly held by ARCO and Thunder Basin. Appellants contend that ARCO pays all taxes on the mine. More precisely, then, they show that ARCO officials paid visits to the mine which would average four times a day and that various ARCO officials did attend safety meetings conducted by Thunder Basin at the mine. They place a great deal of importance upon the fact that the president of Anaconda Minerals, another corporate subsidiary of ARCO, had sent a memorandum to Thunder Basin recommending the use of seat belts by the employees of Thunder Basin. Furthermore, Appellants contend that the record shows that ARCO reviewed the qualifications of, and interviewed all, safety directors before they were hired by Thunder Basin. There also is reliance upon the fact that ARCO had two representatives at the Black Thunder Mine who worked on Thunder Basin's training program and set policy in regard to training at the mine.

We have adopted as the legal standard for the liability of a parent corporation the requirement that the parent assume some independent legal duty by retaining or exercising control over some aspect of the operation of a subsidiary corporation which was involved in the incident resulting in the plaintiff's injuries. Wessel v. Mapco, Inc., 752 P.2d 1363 (Wyo.1988); Fiscus, 742 P.2d 198. Essentially, this is the same test that is invoked in considering an owner's liability to the employee of a contractor. Cf. Jones v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 718 P.2d 890 (Wyo.1986); Noonan v. Texaco, Inc., 713 P.2d 160 (Wyo.1986). We have rejected any doctrine of respondeat superior resulting in liability on the part of a parent corporation for acts of its subsidiary. Fiscus. Cf. Noonan. The parent company is entitled to the same legal separation from its subsidiary, as well as the resulting protection from liability, that any individual shareholder enjoys with respect to a corporation in which stock is held. United States v. Van Diviner, 822 F.2d 960 (10th Cir.1987).

In light of the legal standard and the actual contentions of Appellants, we must test this case against our summary judgment standards. The essential purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to eliminate the expense and burden of a formal trial when only questions of law are involved. Johnson v. Soulis, 542 P.2d 867 (Wyo.1975); Vipont Mining Company v. Uranium Research and Development Company, 376 P.2d 868 (Wyo.1962). We can approve and sustain a summary judgment only when persuaded that there is no genuine issue with respect to any material fact, and that the prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Larsen v. Hall, 770 P.2d 1089 (Wyo.1989); Farr v. Link, 746 P.2d 431 (Wyo.1987); Duffy v. Brown, 708 P.2d 433 (Wyo.1985); Greaser v. Williams, 703 P.2d 327 (Wyo.1985). Because summary judgment forecloses a trial on the merits, we do not lightly consider appeals from summary judgment. Larsen; Kobielusz v. Wilson, 701 P.2d 559 (Wyo.1985). Conversely, however, we recognize that the beneficial purpose of summary judgment would be defeated if cases could be forced to trial simply by an assertion that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Noonan; Johnson; Maxted v. Pacific Car & Foundry Company, 527 P.2d 832 (Wyo.1974).

The process for identifying genuine issues of material fact also is familiar. The moving party has the burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and justifying its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Jones Land & Livestock Company v. Federal Land Bank of Omaha, 733 P.2d 258 (Wyo.1987). This is a significant burden, particularly when we note that we examine the record from the perspective of the party opposing the motion and grant to that party the benefit of every favorable inference and reasonable doubt. Wessel; England v. Simmons, 728 P.2d 1137 (Wyo.1986); Jones; Roth v. First Security Bank of Rock Springs, 684 P.2d 93 (Wyo.1984). Once that showing is presented by the moving party, however, the burden then shifts to the party defending against the motion to present for the record facts in the form of admissible evidence which structure a genuine issue of material fact. Dubus v. Dresser Industries, 649 P.2d 198 (Wyo.1982); Hyatt v. Big Horn School District No. 4, 636 P.2d 525 (Wyo.1981); Moore v. Kiljander, 604 P.2d 204 (Wyo.1979); Rule 56(e), W.R.C.P.

It does not matter how genuine a factual issue is; if it does not relate to a material fact, it cannot prevent the entry of a summary judgment. Johnson, 542 P.2d 867; Gladstone Hotel, Inc. v. Smith, 487 P.2d 329 (Wyo.1971). In Johnson, 542 P.2d at 871-72, this court defined a material fact as:

" * * * [O]ne having some legal significance, that is, under the law applicable to a given case, it would control in some way the legal relations of the parties; as one upon which the outcome of litigation depends in whole or in part; as one on which the controversy may be determined; as one which will affect the result or outcome of the case depending upon its resolution; and one which constitutes a part of the plaintiff's cause of action or of the defendant's defense. A fair summary of these definitions is that for purposes of ruling upon a motion for summary judgment a fact is material if proof of that fact would have the effect of establishing or refuting one of the essential elements of a cause of action or defense asserted by the parties." (Footnotes omitted.)

Such a fact must in some way control, define, or modify the legal relations of the parties in some tangible manner and, thus, have the clear effect of establishing or refuting the essential element of a claim or defense asserted by the parties. Baldwin v. Dube, 751 P.2d 388 (Wyo.1988).

We also are mindful of our duty to examine the evidence in the same light as it was presented to the trial court. Connaghan v. Eighty-Eight Oil, 750 P.2d 1321 (Wyo.1988). In so doing, we view the evidence...