Olson v. Pennzoil Co., 91-1173
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before LAY; WOLLMAN |
| Citation | 943 F.2d 881 |
| Parties | Robert OLSON and Jan Olson, Appellants, v. PENNZOIL COMPANY, Appellee. PENNZOIL COMPANY, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, v. SUN WELL SERVICE, INC., Third-Party Defendant. |
| Docket Number | No. 91-1173,91-1173 |
| Decision Date | 04 October 1991 |
Page 881
v.
PENNZOIL COMPANY, Appellee.
PENNZOIL COMPANY, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
SUN WELL SERVICE, INC., Third-Party Defendant.
Eighth Circuit.
Decided Sept. 5, 1991.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 4, 1991.
Page 882
Paul Jacobson, Williston, N.D., for appellants.
Randall J. Bakke, Bismarck, N.D., for appellee.
Before LAY, Chief Judge, RONEY, * Senior Circuit Judge, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.
WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.
Robert and Janet Olson appeal from the district court's 1 grant of summary judgment for Pennzoil Company. We affirm.
I.
In this diversity case, Robert Olson, an employee of Northern Tubing Testers (Northern), was injured while testing tubing at an oil well located on a leasehold in North Dakota owned by Pennzoil. Sun Well Service, Inc. (Sun Well) was servicing the oil well, and it provided all of the rig equipment there in use. Northern provided all of the equipment that was used to test the tubing.
Pennzoil had contracted with Northern directly to provide the testing. Pennzoil requested that Northern conduct the testing "above the slips" and that it bring along an "extra hand" to perform the work.
The testing procedure employed in this case involved injecting water into the tubing under 8,000 pounds of pressure to determine whether any holes or leaks existed in the tubing. Olson's job was to place a testing tool in the top end of the tubing and then signal his fellow worker to begin pressurizing the tubing.
There are two basic positions from which the testing procedure can be performed, above or below the slips. The "slips" are the devices on the floor of the derrick that hold the tubing (or pipe string, as it is sometimes referred to) in place during well-servicing operations.
Testing above the girts can be performed at one of three locations: the rod basket, which is located towards the top of the derrick; the tubing board, which is located at a point approximately midway in the derrick; and from the girts, or crossbars, of the derrick superstructure. A position on the girts is the most dangerous of the three locations, and the accident would not have occurred had Olson done the testing from either the rod basket or the tubing board.
Olson positioned himself on the girts at a point approximately sixty feet above the ground. He testified in his deposition that because the tubing was being tested in sixty-foot lengths, it would not have been possible for him to have inserted the testing tool into the tubing from a position in the rod basket or on the tubing board, and that in any event there was no room for him on the tubing board inasmuch as it was
Page 883
already occupied by one of Sun Well's employees.To protect himself from falling, Olson fastened a safety line around his body and tied it to the derrick. As the testing was being performed, a hole the diameter of a .22 caliber bullet developed in a section of the tubing even with Olson's body. Olson was struck in the leg by the highly pressured escaping jet of water, lost his footing on the girts, and suffered an injury to his back while being twisted about in the safety harness by the force of the impact.
No Pennzoil employees were present at any time during the testing on the day of the accident.
Olson argues that the trial court erred in ruling that Pennzoil was not liable on any theory for Olson's injuries.
II.
Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that "the record does not disclose a genuine dispute as to a material fact." City of Mt. Pleasant v. Associated Elec. Coop., 838 F.2d 268, 273 (8th Cir.1988). If the moving party meets its initial burden, the non-moving party must then produce specific evidence to demonstrate genuine issues for trial. Id. at 273-74; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, Inc. v. Joyce, Case No. 4:12CV1501 ERW.
...U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548. “If the non-moving party fails to produce such evidence, summary judgment is proper.” Olson v. Pennzoil Co., 943 F.2d 881, 883 (8th Cir.1991).III. DISCUSSION At issue is whether the statute reflects an acceptable balance between the constitutionally protected ri......
-
Cowden v. BNSF Ry. Co., Case No. 4:08CV01534 ERW.
...U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505. “If the non-moving party fails to produce such evidence, summary judgment is proper.” Olson v. Pennzoil Co., 943 F.2d 881, 883 (8th Cir.1991). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court may not “weigh the evidence in the summary judgment record, decid......
-
Shepard v. City of Waterloo, 14-CV-2057-LRR
...has failed to advance any evidence to support his position. Accordingly, summary judgment is appropriate. Cf. Olson v. Pennzoil Co., 943 F.2d 881, 883 (8th Cir. 1991) (holding that, if the non-moving party fails to "produce specific evidence to demonstrate genuine issues for trial," then su......
-
Great Rivers Habitat v. U.S. Army Corps of Enginr., 4:05CV01567ERW.
...U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548. "If the non-moving party fails to produce such evidence, summary judgment is proper." Olson v. Pennzoil Co., 943 F.2d 881, 883 (8th III. DISCUSSION Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq, Plaintiffs seek judicial review of th......