Petty-Ray Geophysical, Div. of Geosource, Inc. v. Ludvik, PETTY-RAY

• Decision Date: 22 April 1986
• Docket Number: No. 85-258,PETTY-RAY,85-258
• Citation: 718 P.2d 9
• Parties: GEOPHYSICAL, DIVISION OF GEOSOURCE, INC., Appellant (Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff), v. James A. LUDVIK, Appellee (Plaintiff), Twiford Ranch, Inc., a Wyoming corporation, Appellee (Third-Party Defendant).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 9

718 P.2d 9

PETTY-RAY GEOPHYSICAL, DIVISION OF GEOSOURCE, INC., Appellant (Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff), v. James A. LUDVIK, Appellee (Plaintiff) Twiford Ranch, Inc., a Wyoming corporation, Appellee (Third-Party Defendant).

No. 85-258.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

April 22, 1986.

Rehearing Denied June 26, 1986.

Susan K. Overeem, Casper, for appellant.

Frank J. Jones of Jones & Weaver, P.C., Wheatland, for appellee Ludvik.

Stephen N. Sherard, Wheatland, for appellee Twiford Ranch, Inc.

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

MACY, Justice.

Appellee James A. Ludvik (hereinafter Ludvik) brought suit against appellant Petty-Ray Geophysical (hereinafter Petty-Ray) for actual and punitive damages resulting from Petty-Ray's entry upon Ludvik's property without consent and subsequent seismographic exploration. Petty-Ray answered and filed a third-party complaint against Twiford Ranch, Inc. (hereinafter Twiford) as lessee of the property. From a judgment in favor of Ludvik, Petty-Ray now appeals.

We reverse.

Petty-Ray raises the following issues:

"I. In the absence of a provision in the lease, is the lessor or the lessee entitled to grant permission to the geophysical company for entry and to receive the permit fees for entry.

"II. Was Defendant Petty-Ray a trespasser as to be liable for punitive damages.

"III. Are the damages for trespass assessed against Defendant Petty-Ray in actuality punitive damages, although ostensibly denominated as compensatory.

"IV. Did the trial court err in assessing damages of one-half ( 1/2) of the permit fees against Defendant Petty-Ray in favor of the Plaintiff.

"V. What is the measure of actual damages to the lessor's reversionary interest.

"VI. Did the trial court err in its assessment of actual damages against Defendant Petty-Ray in favor of the Plaintiff."

Ludvik restates the issue as follows:

"Was there sufficient evidence to support the decision of the trial court?"

In the fall of 1983, Petty-Ray was conducting geophysical exploration in Platte County, Wyoming. An agent of the company contacted Twiford to obtain permission to conduct seismographic exploration on his land. During the negotiations, Twiford advised the agent that he could give Petty-Ray permission to conduct further exploration on land belonging to Ludvik, because Twiford held the land under a lease with option to buy. When the discussion concluded, Twiford signed a geophysical permit in which he gave Petty-Ray his permission to enter and explore. The lands described in the permit included land owned by Twiford and land leased to Twiford by Ludvik. The permit also provided for payment of an $800-per-mile fee for permission to enter and explore and for normal damage resulting from such exploration.

Pursuant to the permit, Petty-Ray entered upon the lands and began exploration in October of 1983. Exploration was concluded in February of 1984. Permit fees were paid to Twiford in accordance with the agreement. Due to weather conditions, more than the usual ruts and grass damage occurred during exploration. As payment for the excess damage, Petty-Ray issued a check to Twiford in the sum of $4,800.

Upon discovering the ruts and grass damage, Ludvik filed suit against Petty-Ray. In his complaint, Ludvik alleged that he was the owner of the described property; that Petty-Ray conducted seismographic exploration on the property without his consent; and that Petty-Ray's entry, therefore, constituted a trespass. Petty-Ray answered, admitting that seismographic exploration had been conducted on the land described but denying that it was done without permission. In its third-party complaint, Petty-Ray claimed that Twiford had represented to Petty-Ray that he was the lessee of the property with the sole legal authority to grant permission to enter; that in reliance on Twiford's representations, Petty-Ray entered and conducted explorations on the land; that Petty-Ray paid the permit fee and additional damage payments to Twiford; and that, therefore, any damages awarded to Ludvik against Petty-Ray must be repaid by Twiford to Petty-Ray.

On August 12, 1985, Ludvik filed a motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, Petty-Ray and Twiford each filed a motion for summary judgment. A hearing on the motions was set for September 3, 1985. A summary judgment nunc pro tunc was filed on October 3, 1985, in which the trial court made the following findings:

"1. That Defendant Petty-Ray is liable to Plaintiff for actual damages to the subject property.

"2. That Third party Defendant Twiford was the lessee of the subject property and had the legal right to give permission to Defendant Petty-Ray to go upon the property and to receive the permit fees of $800 a mile.

"3. That Defendant Petty-Ray was not a trespasser and punitive damages do not lie.

"4. That there exists a question of fact concerning the $4,800.00 payment made to Third Party Defendant Twiford by Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff Petty-Ray for repair of extensive rutting and grass damage."

On the basis of these findings, the trial court issued the following order:

"1. That partial Summary Judgment be and hereby is granted to Plaintiff Ludvik on the issue of Defendant Petty-Ray's liability for actual damage.

"2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as the same pertains to the amounts due for actual damage be and hereby is denied.

"3. That partial Summary Judgment be and hereby is granted to Third Party Defendant Twiford Ranch as to the issue of reimbursement to Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff for all sums paid for the right to enter upon and conduct seismic operations on the subject property which Twiford held under lease.

"4. That Defendant Petty-Ray and Third Party Defendant Twiford Motion for Summary Judgment as the same pertains to the issue of the $4,800.00 paid and received for repair of permanent damage be and hereby is denied.

"5. That partial Summary Judgment be and hereby is granted to Defendant Petty-Ray on the issue of trespass and liability for punitive damages."

Meanwhile, on September 9, 1985, the matters remaining were tried to the court. Judgment was entered on September 30, 1985, for Ludvik in the sum of $4,360 plus costs.

We appreciate Petty-Ray's carefully detailed statement of the issues but find that, in essence, only one issue is before us: Whether the court's assessment of damages is sufficiently supported by the evidence.

In order to determine whether the trial court's judgment is correct, it is necessary for this Court to examine the record to see if there is evidence to support the $4,360 award.

When discussing the sufficiency of the evidence,...