Stewart & Stevenson, LLC v. Foret
| Decision Date | 15 August 2013 |
| Docket Number | NO. 01-11-01032-CV,01-11-01032-CV |
| Parties | STEWART & STEVENSON, LLC, Appellant v. BRADY FORET, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appellant, Stewart & Stevenson, LLC, challenges the trial court's judgment, entered after a jury trial, in favor of appellee, Brady Foret, in Foret's suit against Stewart & Stevenson for negligence. In three issues, Stewart & Stevensoncontends that the trial court erred in not including in its jury charge an instruction on the law of responsible third parties,1 awarding excessive future damages, and admitting Foret's late-filed evidence.
We affirm.
In his fourth amended petition, Foret alleged that on January 11, 2009, while he was working as a "derrick man" for Key Energy Services, LLC ("Key Energy") on a 112-foot land-based oil drilling rig ("Rig 65"), the mast collapsed, causing him to fall over eighty feet to the ground and suffer severe injuries. Rig 65 had previously been refurbished and inspected by Stewart & Stevenson at its facility in Odessa, Texas. However, Rig 65 collapsed because it was missing at least two "safety pins and retainer pins" and "critical safety equipment" that should have been provided by Stewart & Stevenson during the refurbishment. Foret, who was twenty-three years old at the time of Rig 65's collapse, "sustained severe bodily injuries, including orthopedic injuries and a traumatic brain injury, which have resulted in physical pain, mental anguish and other medical problems, includingdisfigurement and impairment." Foret sought to recover from Stewart & Stevenson $10,702,459.52 in damages.2
In its second amended answer, Stewart & Stevenson generally denied Foret's allegations, asserting that Foret's injuries were caused by his own negligence or the negligence of "third parties over whom [Stewart & Stevenson] had no control or right of control." Before trial, Stewart & Stevenson filed its "Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties," seeking to designate Apache Corporation ("Apache"), Robert McLemore, and Key Energy as responsible third parties. Apache was the well site owner and operator at the time of Rig 65's collapse, and McLemore was the "company man," working for Apache and responsible for overseeing the operation. Stewart & Stevenson alleged that Apache and McLemore were negligent in "improperly using a foundation/pad that was designed and constructed for use by a different drilling rig;" failing to "design and construct a foundation/pad for the drilling rig;" "ensure that the drilling rig was properly equipped with all safety devices;" "adequately inspect the drilling rig;" and "provide a safe workplace."
After the trial court granted Stewart & Stevenson's motion, Foret filed a "Motion to Strike Designated Responsible Third Parties," arguing that the collapseof Rig 65 occurred solely because "the derrick was missing critical pins for support and essential for safety." Foret asserted that Rig 65's collapse occurred on its first use after being refurbished by Stewart & Stevenson, which had produced no evidence to indicate that Apache, McLemore, or Key Energy were responsible for his injuries. Foret also noted that Apache was found not liable for Rig 65's collapse in a companion case filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Stewart & Stevenson later filed a "Motion to Strike [Foret's] Late-Filed Discovery," asserting that Foret had produced to Stewart & Stevenson, after the July 1, 2011 discovery deadline, among other evidence, a medical report from Dr. Paul J. Hubbell, III on July 7, 2011 and an expert report from Terry Arnold on July 11, 2011. In her report, Arnold produced a "Life Care Plan" for Foret, opining that Foret would incur $679,296 in future medical and related needs. Stewart & Stevenson alleged that Arnold's report was based, in part, on the late-filed medical report of Hubbell, who estimated that Foret would require $259,710 in pain-management treatment.
Foret testified that on January 11, 2009, he was assigned as a 'derrickman" on Rig 65, which was then located in Golden Meadow, Louisiana. As a derrickman, Foret stood on a platform, referred to as a "monkey board," hanging off the side of Rig 65's mast, approximately eighty feet off of the ground. It washis job to stand on the platform and "rack" the drill pipes on the mast, change the pipes, and ensure that they were aligned correctly. When Foret began work on Rig 65, it was "flagged," meaning that another derrickman had set up the rig to be worked on. He explained that before Rig 65 collapsed, he did not see any indication that it was tipping one way or another. And, as he was working on the monkey board, Foret suddenly heard "a loud pop" from above and felt the rig "start to collapse."
Foret's next memory was of waking up the next day in a hospital with a ventilator hooked up to his throat and his teeth wired shut because he had undergone jaw surgery while unconscious. His head, face, and right eye were swollen, making it difficult for him to see out of the eye. Foret also suffered a broken shoulder blade, a torn rotator cuff, a torn tricep, several rib fractures, a torn posterior cruciate ligament in his left knee, a collapsed lung, and several spinal fractures. At the time of trial, Foret still felt back pain, suffered from recurring knee problems, and had short-term memory loss. And he explained that he would have to undergo cognitive rehabilitation therapy for his injuries for the rest of his life.
Foret offered, and the trial court admitted into evidence, a report prepared by Francisco Godoy and Roger Craddock of Engineering Systems Incorporated ("ESI"), analyzing the cause of Rig 65's collapse. In their report, Godoy andCraddock explained that Rig 65's mast consisted of a lower and an upper section, which are connected at four sets of "pawls." When the upper mast was extended, the pawls were simultaneously lifted, transferring the weight of the upper mast to the lower mast through the pawls. The pawls each contained a "link lock mechanism" that secured them to the mast with a locking, or safety, pin. Each set of pawls required its own locking pin; so, properly constructed, Rig 65 should have contained four locking pins for each set of pawls.
Godoy and Craddock opined that when the pawls were lifted on Rig 65 on the date of the collapse, it was "highly likely" that a locking pin became loose due to "mechanical vibrations or other mechanical operations." When the locking pin became loose, the "entire upper mast load, which was supported evenly on both sides, suddenly became supported" on only the "'Off Driller' side left leg" of Rig 65. As a result, the weight placed on the Off Driller side of the left leg "exceeded the maximum allowable" and caused Rig 65 to begin to buckle. Eventually, the upper pawl on the Off Driller side "slipped or skidded" off the lower pawl, the upper mast started to lean towards the left, eventually causing it to detach from the lower mast and collapse Rig 65. Godoy and Craddock concluded that: (1) if Rig 65 "had been provided with the four locking pins, it is unlikely that the collapse would have occurred"; (2) Stewart & Stevenson should have, but did not, provide Rig 65 with four locking pins during repair; (3) Stewart & Stevenson's inspectors"were not well enough trained and knowledgeable"; and (4) because "the rig was able to accommodate the extra forces applied by the tautening of the guy-wires," the tautening "could not have been the cause of the buckling that caused the final collapse of the rig." At trial, Godoy testified to the same facts and conclusions.
Mark Henderson testified that he was the general manager of Stewart & Stevenson's Odessa facility beginning in November 2008. He estimated that Stewart & Stevenson finished its refurbishment of Rig 65 between April and July 2008. After Rig 65 had been shipped for on-site work in Louisiana, Stewart & Stevenson received a call from Key Energy requesting a technician to provide a "replacement pin" for Rig 65. Henderson noted that after refurbishing a mast, Stewart & Stevenson would have a quality-control technician test and certify the mast before it left the Odessa facility.
Roy Mendoza, a Stewart & Stevenson quality-control technician, testified that he conducted the final inspection of Rig 65. He noted that, if he had noticed any missing locking pins, he would have reported it on the final inspection checklist. Mendoza did not recall whether the technician made sure the locking pins fit where they were supposed to. He was also not aware of how many locking pins Rig 65 required, but he agreed that a Stewart & Stevenson employee must have been responsible for ensuring that all of the locking pins were in place.Mendoza marked on his checklist that the mast was sufficient even though he had only seen two locking pins on it.
Jose Barron, the Stewart & Stevenson refurbishment manager in July 2008, testified that he was responsible for the employees who refurbished and certified Rig 65. He performed his own inspection, an "AESC Category 4 Inspection," of Rig 65 after the refurbishment work had been completed. Barron noted that one of the purposes of an AESC Category 4 Inspection is to ensure that the locking system is working adequately. He admitted that if Rig 65 was missing two locking pins, it would not have met industry standards. However, Barron further testified that, even with only two locking pins, the rig should have been able to carry the maximum load of 300,000 pounds, as represented by Stewart & Stevenson.
John Michael Garber, an environmental, health, and safety coordinator with Apache, testified that Apache did not perform a safety audit on Rig 65 prior to its use. After the collapse of Rig 65, he interviewed the Key Energy employees who were at the site, and they told him that there was nothing ...
To continue reading
Request your trial