Tovar v. Amarillo Oil Co., C-4001
| Decision Date | 26 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. C-4001,C-4001 |
| Citation | 692 S.W.2d 469 |
| Parties | Henry TOVAR et al., Petitioners, v. AMARILLO OIL COMPANY et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Chambers and Sturgeon, Ben L. Sturgeon and Mark L. Mosley, Amarillo, for petitioners.
Stokes and Fields, Gary W. Barnard, and Gibson, Ochsner and Adkins, Mac W. Hancock III, Amarillo, for respondents.
This is a personal injury case arising from an oil field accident. The trial court, pursuant to a jury verdict, awarded Henry Tovar $320,324.81. The court of appeals, in an unpublished opinion, reversed and rendered judgment that plaintiff take-nothing. Pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.P. 483, without hearing oral argument, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause back to that court for consideration of points not therein addressed.
Henry Tovar was employed by Moran Brothers, Inc., a drilling company. Amarillo Oil Company hired Moran Brothers to drill a well on its lease. The drilling contract between Amarillo Oil and Moran Brothers specifically provided for a blowout preventer. The bid sheet and drilling order specified that the kill line should not be used for a fill line on the blowout preventer. Moran Brothers used the kill line for a fill line, and Amarillo Oil was aware of that deviation. The Amarillo Oil on-site representative had suggested to his superiors the possibility of shutting down operations because of the blowout preventer design. Under the drilling contract, Amarillo Oil had the right to take possession of the well and discontinue drilling in the event of carelessness, inattention, or incompetency on the part of Moran Brothers. Tovar suffered severe injury to his chest, ribs, shoulders, legs and back when pressure which had built up in the hole because of the blowout preventer design caused the bit breaker and drilling mud to spew out of the mouth of the well.
The jury found that Amarillo Oil was negligent in failing to order Moran Brothers to shut down the drilling rig, and that such negligence was a proximate cause of Tovar's injuries. The court of appeals held that Amarillo Oil did not owe Tovar a duty as a matter of law.
In Redinger v. Living, Inc., 689 S.W.2d 415 (Tex.1985) we adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 414 (1977) which provides:
One who entrusts work to an independent contractor, but who retains the control of any part of the work, is subject to liability for physical harm to others for whose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chesapeake Operating v. Nabors Drilling Usa
...Act to make it less restrictive). 6. See, e.g., Koch Ref. Co. v. Chapa, 11 S.W.3d 153, 157 (Tex.1999); Tovar v. Amarillo Oil Co., 692 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex.1985). 7. See, e.g., Clayton W. Williams, Jr., Inc. v. Olivo, 952 S.W.2d 523, 527 8. See, e.g., Ken Petroleum, 24 S.W.3d at 346 (reversi......
-
Lee Lewis Const., Inc. v. Harrison
...once has this Court held an employer liable for an independent contractor's negligent injury to the contractor's own employee. In Tovar v. Amarillo Oil Co., we upheld the liability of the operator of an oil and gas lease for injury to a drilling company's employee from the driller's misuse ......
-
Scott Fetzer Co. v. Read
...be necessary to satisfy the duty Kirby owed to Read. 14 We overrule points of error one and two. Restatement. See Tovar v. Amarillo Oil Co., 692 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex.1985); see also Exxon Corp. v. Quinn, 726 S.W.2d 17, 20 Proximate Cause In its third point of error, Kirby argues that eviden......
-
R.R. Street & Co. v. Pilgrim Enterprises
...right to control a subcontractor but does nothing. Shell Oil Co. v. Khan, 138 S.W.3d 288, 292 (Tex.2004); see Tovar v. Amarillo Oil Co., 692 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex.1985) (per curiam). But SWDA's requirement that a responsible party must have "arranged to process, store, or dispose of ... soli......