Jones v. Nafco Oil & Gas, Inc.

• Decision Date: 23 September 1963
• Docket Number: No. 7279,7279
• Citation: 371 S.W.2d 584
• Parties: Hall JONES, Appellant, v. NAFCO OIL & GAS, INC. et al., Appellees.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 584

371 S.W.2d 584

Hall JONES, Appellant, v. NAFCO OIL & GAS, INC. et al., Appellees.

No. 7279.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Amarillo.

Sept. 23, 1963.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 21, 1963.

Sanders, Scott, Saunders, Brian & Humphrey, Amarillo, for appellant.

Simpson, Adkins, Fullingim & Hankins, Amarillo, for appellees.

DENTON, Chief Justice.

Appellant, Hall Jones, brought this suit against appellees, Nafco Oil & Gas, Inc. and Sam Wysong, seeking damages for the death and injury of appellant's cattle from the drinking of condensate from a gas well operated by Nafco. The trial court instructed a verdict for appellees, defendants below. Upon this verdict, the trial court rendered judgment in their behalf.

On September 22, 1956, and at all times material here, Nafco Oil & Gas, Inc. was the lessee and operator of a gas well on the section of land involved here. No other gas or oil well was located on this section. Wysong, an employee of Nafco Oil & Gas, Inc., had the responsibility of checking and maintaining this well. Appellant secured a one-year surface or grazing lease from the land owner on May 1, 1958, which was some time after the gas well was in operation. He secured another one-year grass lease in May of 1959. It is undisputed the appellant was familiar with the well and its equipment as he was on the premises at frequent intervals. No alterations to the well's equipment had been made during this period of time. The gas well equipment consisted of a well head, two gathering tanks, a separator, pipes and fittings. This equipment, with the exception of a two inch or three inch draining pipe, was enclosed by a wire fence. This pipe, connected to the gathering tanks, estended out beyond the fence some five feet. The pipe was connected to the storage tanks by a lock-type valve called a 'plug valve' which was kept padlocked. It could be opened only by unlocking the padlock with a key.

Appellant's cause of action charging appellees with negligence is alleged in the following language:

'On or about September 22, 1959, the Defendant WYSONG and/or other employees of NAFCO OIL AND GAS, INC. went to the above described well on said Section 115, at that time seeing Plaintiff's cattle on said section of land and at that time knowing that Plaintiff's cattle were on said section, and, through manual dumping, draining or purging of the condensate tanks and/or separator, turned a substantial quantity of condensate or condensate and salt water into the 2 or 3 inch drain pipe above described, permitting such condensate or salt water and condensate to flow out of said drain pipe outside of the fence enclosure around the tanks and separator and to gather in pools or puddles where the same was available to Plaintiff's cattle.'

'Alternatively, Corporate Defendant and its employee, WYSONG, and/or other of its employees negligently allowed a valve from the condensate stock tanks and/or separator into the 2 or 3 inch pipe, with its open terminous outside the fence enclosures above mentioned, to become defective and leaky to the point to where on or about September 22, 1959, a substantial quantity of the liquids out of said stock tanks and/or separator leaked out of said tanks and/or separator through said leaky valve onto the lands above described upon which Plaintiff grazed his cattle in a substantial amount, the same gathering in pools and puddles.'

Appellant further pleaded res ipsa loquitur, and alternatively pleaded the acts of appellees constituted an excessive use of the land necessary to operate the oil and gas lease.

A careful study of this record reflects there was no evidence that the valve was leaky or defective. Wysong, who inspected the well almost daily, testified the valve did not leak. He had checked the well on September 21, 1959, and at eight a. m. the following day which is the date in question. He testified these inspections revealed no leakage of the valve and that he observed no cattle tracks near the drainage pipe. Appellant also testified he had never seen liquid hydrocarbon on the surface near the well prior to the date of the alleged injury to the cattle. Not only is the record silent as to the valve being defective, but the presence of condensate on the day in question was explained by one W. A. McRee, a truck driver of Groendyke Company. The latter company was employed by Nafco to haul off the condensate which had been separated from the gas and stored in the tank battery. These tanks were emptied approximately once a month. McRee, who had a key to the padlock on the valve, testified he went to the lease on the day in question sometime between ten a....