MacKrell v. Bell H2S SAFETY, No. 89-218
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming |
Writing for the Court | Before CARDINE; CARDINE |
Citation | 795 P.2d 776 |
Docket Number | No. 89-218 |
Decision Date | 23 July 1990 |
Parties | Paul MacKRELL, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. BELL H sub2 S SAFETY and Kim Brondum, Appellees (Defendants). |
Page 776
v.
BELL H sub2 S SAFETY and Kim Brondum, Appellees (Defendants).
Page 777
William J. Flynn, Green River, for appellant.
Thomas A. Nicholas of Hirst & Applegate, Cheyenne, for appellees.
Before CARDINE, C.J. * , and THOMAS, URBIGKIT, MACY and GOLDEN, JJ.
CARDINE, Chief Justice.
Appellant Paul MacKrell (MacKrell) sued to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from a propane gas explosion. He appeals from a summary judgment in favor of appellees Bell H sub2 S Safety (Bell) and its employee Kim Brondum (Brondum).
We affirm.
MacKrell states the issue as:
"Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment for Defendants Bell H sub2 S Safety and Kim Brondum on the issue of whether their negligent acts were the proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries?"
Bell and Brondum present the issues:
"A. Did the District Court correctly decide that there were no genuine issues as to material facts and that Bell H sub2 S Safety and Kim Brondum were entitled to judgment as a matter of law?
"B. Did the District Court correctly decide that Defendants were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because Plaintiff's injuries were the result of an intervening cause?"
The justification for the enormous delay in processing this matter through the district court is not evident from the record. The original complaint was filed on July 28, 1983. Summary judgment in favor of Bell and Brondum was entered on July 1, 1985. MacKrell had made claims against several other defendants which were not disposed of by the summary judgment. A notice of appeal, filed on July 16, 1985, was withdrawn on August 21, 1985, for the reason that the judgment appealed from was not final. On August 8, 1989, and August 22, 1989, over four years after the summary judgment was entered, the district court entered orders dismissing the complaints against the other defendants, with prejudice, upon stipulation of the parties. The judgment of the district court then became a final appealable order, and a notice of appeal was filed on August 22, 1989.
In their motion for summary judgment, Bell and Brondum asserted that they owed no duty to appellant in the hookup, maintenance, inspection, repair or any aspect of the propane gas system; that even if there was a duty and a breach of that duty, they were not liable because the proximate cause of appellant's injury was the ignition of a cigarette lighter by a coemployee of MacKrell in a trailer obviously filled with the propane gas.
The motion for summary judgment was supported by an affidavit of Brondum, an employee of Bell. Brondum arrived at work at 7:00 a.m. on October 24, 1982.
Page 778
Steve Lovett (Lovett), another Bell employee, was in the process of hooking up a propane gas line to a trailer that belonged to Bell. A "T" was being placed in the gas line leading from a propane bottle to the Norton trailer. Once the "T" was in place, turning on the flow of gas would result in gas being supplied to both the Bell trailer and the Norton trailer. When Brondum took over, Lovett directed him not to turn on the gas because the stove burners inside the Norton trailer were turned on. Brondum was to contact the Norton toolpusher to have the burners turned off. Brondum went to the Norton drilling rig floor and asked the toolpusher to unlock the Norton trailer so he could turn off the burners. Brondum was advised by the Norton toolpusher that the burners had been turned off and that it was all right to turn on the gas. Brondum turned the gas on at 9:30 p.m. that same day.At 3:00 a.m. on October 26, 1982, the Norton trailer exploded. Brondum ran to the scene of the explosion and found three injured people to whom he rendered first aid and then transported two of them to a hospital in Kemmerer. While waiting to be treated, the injured Norton workers told Brondum that they had gone into the trailer, smelled gas, turned off the burners, opened the windows, then tried to light the furnace with a Bic lighter and the trailer exploded.
Lovett's affidavit, also filed with the motion for summary judgment, stated that he had received permission from the Norton toolpusher to connect a line from the Bell trailer to the propane bottle also used by the Norton trailer. He was in the process of doing this work when he was relieved by Brondum. Lovett told Brondum how to complete the work and that he thought the stove burners in the Norton trailer were on. Because the Norton trailer was locked, Lovett instructed Brondum to contact the Norton toolpusher to make sure the stove burners were turned off before turning on the propane. Lovett also stated that he had no responsibility for the Norton trailer or the propane gas service to it.
In answer to MacKrell's interrogatories, Bell stated that: Brondum was its employee, but denied that it or its employees installed a propane gas tank for the Norton trailer; denied that it had ever had a propane gas tank installed by it involved in an explosion prior to the explosion at the Norton trailer; denied knowing to whom the propane gas tank and connecting line belonged, but stated it assumed they belonged to Norton; denied that it had the right of control or management over the propane gas tank and gas line to the Norton trailer; stated that it had not installed the propane gas tank which supplied gas to the Norton trailer; and denied knowledge of any regulations or industry standards and any testing or inspection standards which apply to the connection of propane gas tanks to trailers. Attached to the answers to interrogatories were the statements of Brondum and Lovett. They add nothing beyond that which is provided in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bogdanski v. Budzik, S-17-0049
...judgment is proper." Allmaras v. Mudge , 820 P.2d 533, 536 (Wyo. 1991) (alteration in original) (citing MacKrell v. Bell H2S Safety , 795 P.2d 776, 779 (Wyo. 1990) ). Johnson v. Dale C. , 2015 WY 42, ¶¶ 12-15, 345 P.3d 883, 886-87 (Wyo. 2015). Amos v. Lincoln Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 2 , 2015 WY......
-
Natrona County v. Blake, No. 02-210.
...must allege and prove the existence of a duty, the breach of which was the proximate cause of harm. See MacKrell v. Bell H2S Safety, 795 P.2d 776, 779 (Wyo. 1990). The initial inquiry focuses on whether a duty exists. McCoy v. Crook Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 987 P.2d 674, 677 (Wyo.1999). Whethe......
-
Allmaras v. Mudge, No. 90-275
...the movant is entitled to the judgment as a matter of law], the entry of summary judgment is proper." MacKrell v. Bell H sub2 S Safety, 795 P.2d 776, 779 (Wyo.1990). See also W.R.C.P. 56(c). Applying our standard of review, we examine the record to determine whether summary judgment in favo......
-
First Wyoming Bank, N.A., Jackson Hole v. Continental Ins. Co., No. 90-258
...is clearly required and stated in law is that facts must be alleged which state a claim in tort. See MacKrell v. Bell H sub2 S Safety, 795 P.2d 776, 779 (Wyo.1990) (plaintiff's bald statement that a party is negligent is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact). Such facts a......
-
Bogdanski v. Budzik, S-17-0049
...judgment is proper." Allmaras v. Mudge , 820 P.2d 533, 536 (Wyo. 1991) (alteration in original) (citing MacKrell v. Bell H2S Safety , 795 P.2d 776, 779 (Wyo. 1990) ). Johnson v. Dale C. , 2015 WY 42, ¶¶ 12-15, 345 P.3d 883, 886-87 (Wyo. 2015). Amos v. Lincoln Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 2 , 2015 WY......
-
Natrona County v. Blake, No. 02-210.
...must allege and prove the existence of a duty, the breach of which was the proximate cause of harm. See MacKrell v. Bell H2S Safety, 795 P.2d 776, 779 (Wyo. 1990). The initial inquiry focuses on whether a duty exists. McCoy v. Crook Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 987 P.2d 674, 677 (Wyo.1999). Whethe......
-
Allmaras v. Mudge, No. 90-275
...the movant is entitled to the judgment as a matter of law], the entry of summary judgment is proper." MacKrell v. Bell H sub2 S Safety, 795 P.2d 776, 779 (Wyo.1990). See also W.R.C.P. 56(c). Applying our standard of review, we examine the record to determine whether summary judgment in favo......
-
First Wyoming Bank, N.A., Jackson Hole v. Continental Ins. Co., No. 90-258
...is clearly required and stated in law is that facts must be alleged which state a claim in tort. See MacKrell v. Bell H sub2 S Safety, 795 P.2d 776, 779 (Wyo.1990) (plaintiff's bald statement that a party is negligent is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact). Such facts a......