Johnston v. Conoco, Inc., II-X

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
• Writing for the Court: Before BROWN; MACY
• Citation: 758 P.2d 566
• Parties: Dell Allen JOHNSTON, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. CONOCO, INC., Gary Robison, John DoesInclusive, Doe CorporationsInclusive, and Doe PartnershipsInclusive, Appellees (Defendants), CONOCO, INC., (Third-Party Plaintiff), v. W.E. "BILL" SAUER COMPANY, (Third-Party Defendant).
• Docket Number: II-X,No. 87-286,I-V
• Decision Date: 19 July 1988

Page 566

758 P.2d 566 Dell Allen JOHNSTON, Appellant (Plaintiff),
v.
CONOCO, INC., Gary Robison, John Does II-X Inclusive, Doe Corporations I-V Inclusive, and Doe Partnerships I-V Inclusive, Appellees (Defendants),
CONOCO, INC., (Third-Party Plaintiff),
v.
W.E. "BILL" SAUER COMPANY, (Third-Party Defendant). No. 87-286. Supreme Court of Wyoming. July 19, 1988.

W. Keith Goody and James K. Lubing of Goody and Lubing, Jackson, for appellant.

Patrick J. Murphy and Stuart R. Day of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper, for appellee Conoco, Inc.

G.G. Greenlee of Murane & Bostwick, Casper, for appellee Gary Robison.

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

MACY, Justice.

Appellant Dell Allen Johnston was injured in an oil field accident during the course of his employment as a roughneck on a drilling rig. He subsequently brought a personal injury action against, inter alia, appellees Conoco, Inc. (Conoco) and Gary Robison. Appellant alleged culpable negligence on the part of co-employee Robison and negligence against Conoco, the owner/operator of the oil and gas lease upon which appellant's employer was drilling a well pursuant to a contract with Conoco. Appellant appeals from the order of the district court granting summary judgment to both Conoco and Mr. Robison.

We affirm.

Appellant, tracking the language of Rule 56(c), W.R.C.P., phrases the issue for review as follows:

"Was the Summary Judgment improper because:

"(i) Genuine issues of material fact existed, and

"(ii) Appellees were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law?"

At the time of his injury, appellant was employed by W.E. "Bill" Sauer Company (Sauer Company) as a floor hand on a drilling rig. Sauer Company was drilling a well for Conoco pursuant to a drilling contract. Conoco, as owner/operator of the oil and gas lease, had a "company man," David Beard, living in a trailer on location during the course of drilling. Evidence in

Page 567

the record established that, as Conoco's representative, Mr. Beard was responsible for monitoring the progress and overseeing the results of drilling. Appellant has alleged that Mr. Beard also had authority to control and supervise daily drilling operations.

Appellant was relatively inexperienced as a rig hand, occupying the position of "worm"; i.e., low man on the crew. On the date of the accident, October 23, 1984, the derrick hand did not show up for work, leaving the rig to be operated by a three-man crew as opposed to the customary four-man operation. Thus, at the time of the accident, the crew was comprised of Mr. Robison as driller, appellant, and Henry Jolly, another floor hand. In addition, evidence in the record established that Mr. Robison had injured his right shoulder some days earlier and to some extent was continuing to experience ill effects or at least discomfort from that injury.

The injury producing accident involving appellant occurred while he and Mr. Jolly were attempting to make a connection; i.e., adding a new joint of drill pipe to the pipe already in the hole. There is a discrepancy in the deposition testimony as to whether the accident happened while the kelly (the "drive" apparatus on a rig) was being removed from the existing pipe in the rotary table so that a new joint could be added or whether it occurred while the crew was attempting to tighten the new joint of pipe into the existing pipe in the rotary table. In any event, both operations require the use of two sets of "tongs," large pipe wrench-type tools, for breaking and making connections. Appellant and Mr. Jolly were having difficulty in getting the tongs to "bite" properly on the drill pipe. Appellant left his normal position on the rig floor to assist Mr. Jolly with his set of tongs. Before appellant and Mr. Jolly were able to secure the tongs, however, Mr. Robison put power to the cathead, and the tongs slipped, crushing appellant's left arm in the rig works.

The extent of appellant's injury is not clearly presented in the summary judgment record before this Court. It is clear, however, that at a minimum his left arm was severely fractured requiring medical care with medical expenses allegedly totaling $12,532.38 at the time the original complaint was filed. The record also indicates appellant received worker's compensation benefits of an unspecified amount as a result of his injury.

By original complaint filed September 12, 1986, and an amendment thereto, appellant brought suit against appellees and numerous other defendants designated as John Does, primarily consisting of unknown individuals and companies responsible for the manufacture and sale of the drilling rig and its component parts. As a result of a pretrial conference, a pretrial order was entered deleting all the John Doe defendants as parties.

Appellant's amended complaint alleged in substance a cause of action against Mr. Robison for culpable negligence in operating the rig while he was in an incapacitated condition and while the crew was shorthanded. Similarly, with respect to Conoco, the amended complaint alleged that Sauer Company employees were under the control and supervision of Conoco, that Conoco had a nondelegable duty to provide a safe work place, and that Conoco was therefore negligent in allowing Mr. Robison to operate the rig while he was in an impaired condition and with a shorthanded crew. Appellant claimed damages totaling $5,062,532.38 including past and future medical expenses, past and future pain and suffering, and loss of the enjoyment of life. ¹

After discovery was conducted by the parties, both appellees filed motions for summary judgment with supporting affidavit and deposition testimony. Appellant responded accordingly. The district court issued a decision letter granting summary judgment to both Mr. Robison and Conoco, and its amended order to that effect was

Page 568

entered on December 1, 1987. This appeal followed.

We begin by reiterating our...