Case Title: Davis v. Black Hills Trucking, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1996-12-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
Davis v. Black Hills Trucking, Inc.1996 WY 170929 P.2d 532Case Number: 95-287Decided: 12/20/1996Supreme Court of Wyoming
Brigitte DAVIS, acting as the Personal Representative of the 
Estate of John Evan Jones, deceased, and on behalf of Andrew Evan Jones and 
Merranda Deann Jones, Minors, by and through Brigitte Davis, their natural 
mother and Guardian ad Litem; and on behalf of Roger Jones, Joann Jones, Earl 
Joe Jones and Justin Andrew Jones,

 Appellants 
(Plaintiffs),

v.

BLACK HILLS TRUCKING, 
INC., a Wyoming Corporation,

 Appellee (Defendant).

Appeal from District 
Court of Lincoln County, Jere Ryckman, J.

Walter Urbigkit 
of Frontier Law Center, Cheyenne, for Appellants.

Richard E. Day 
of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper; and Manuel Lojo of Black 
Hills Trucking, Inc., Casper, for Appellee.

Before 
TAYLOR, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN,* and LEHMAN, 
JJ.

* Chief Justice at time of 
oral argument.

TAYLOR, Chief 
Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant, the 
personal representative for the family of John Jones, appeals the grant of 
summary judgment in favor of appellee, Black Hills Trucking, Inc. (Black Hills). 
Appellant claimed Black Hills negligently disassembled, delivered and 
reassembled a drilling rig, thus proximately causing the accidental death of Mr. 
Jones. The district court granted summary judgment finding that Black Hills owed 
no duty to Mr. Jones. The district court further found that appellant failed to 
establish the element of proximate causation. We affirm the district court's 
conclusion that no duty existed, and therefore do not reach the issue of 
causation.

I. ISSUES

[¶2]      Appellant 
articulates the issues as follows:

I.A Did the District 
Court err in granting Summary Judgment for Defendant Trucking Company which 
contracted to tear down, move and rig up a drilling rig, finding that it owed no 
duty to the drilling company employee who died when a piece of the flooring gave 
way which had been assembled by the trucking company employees using the 
trucking company's crane to place the piece of floor in such a manner that it 
could not be bolted down?

I.B Did the District 
Court err in granting Summary Judgment holding that the intervening negligence 
of the drilling company's employees in not bolting down the floor plate after it 
was discovered was unforeseeable so as to absolve the trucking company which 
created the condition from the effects of its negligence?

[¶3]      Black Hills 
presents the following issues:

1. Did the District Court 
err in finding that Appellants failed to establish that Black Hills had a duty 
to bolt the drawworks floor plate securely to the rig structure or to insure 
that the drawworks floor plate had been securely bolted to the rig 
structure?

In the event this Court 
should find that Black Hills had such a duty and breached that duty, then the 
next issue presented for review is:

2. Assuming Black Hills 
had a duty to secure the drawworks floor into place or to insure that it was 
done and that it breached that duty, was that breach the proximate cause of the 
accident in light of the intervening negligence of the drilling company's 
employees in not bolting down the drawworks floor plate after that situation had 
been discovered?

II. 
FACTS

[¶4]      The operative 
facts are undisputed. Between November 1 and 6, 1991, approximately three weeks 
before the accident, True Drilling Company (True Drilling) engaged Black Hills 
to rig-down Rig No. 23, move the rig five miles, and rig-up at a new location. 
The procedure entailed the cooperative effort of True Drilling employees and 
Black Hills employees. True Drilling employees were responsible for preparing 
the rig for transport, including unbolting the large pieces of the rig. Black 
Hills supplied cranes, trucks and equipment operators. A Black Hills employee 
directed the crane operators while True Drilling employees attached the pieces 
of the rig to the crane and loaded the trucks for transport. Upon arriving at 
the new site, the duties of the employees remained the same, but the process was 
reversed.

[¶5]      Shortly after the 
rig became operational, two of True Drilling's employees discovered that a floor 
plate, which had been bolted down at the previous location, was not secured when 
Rig No. 23 was reassembled. When the employees attempted to replace the bolts, 
they found that the holes in the floor plate were not aligned with the bolt 
holes on the supporting structure. Due to the weight of the floor plate, they 
were unable to move it so that the holes were in alignment. They took no further 
action at that time.

[¶6]      On November 29, 
1991, John Jones fell to his death while working on Rig No. 23. Although no one 
witnessed the accident, an investigation indicated that the unsecured floor 
plate on the rig slid back and tilted open, allowing Mr. Jones to fall through 
the opening. After the investigation of the accident was completed, True 
Drilling employees belatedly bolted the floor plate in place.

[¶7]      Appellant, as 
personal representative for the Jones family, filed a wrongful death claim 
against Black Hills. On November 4, 1992, the district court granted appellant's 
motion to amend the complaint to add Tony Russell, the True Drilling toolpusher, 
as a defendant. The claims against Mr. Russell were dismissed on August 24, 
1993.

[¶8]      Black Hills filed 
a motion for summary judgment which the district court granted on October 12, 
1995. The district court found that the evidence failed to establish that Black 
Hills had a duty to bolt down the floor plate or inspect the rig to ensure that 
the pieces were properly secured. The district court separately found that the 
element of proximate cause was not established. On appeal, we do not reach the 
district court's second finding, as appellant failed to establish a 
duty.

III. 
DISCUSSION

A. STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

[¶9]      As we have often 
stated, summary judgment is appropriate only when no genuine issue as to any 
material fact exists and the prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a 
matter of law. Kahrs v. Board of Trustees for Platte County School Dist. No. 1, 
901 P.2d 404, 406 (Wyo. 1995). We evaluate the propriety of summary judgment 
with the same standards and materials used by the district court, affording no 
deference to the district court's decision on the issues of law. Adkins v. 
Lawson, 892 P.2d 128, 130 (Wyo. 1995). Our examination of the record is from the 
vantage point most favorable to the non-moving party, allowing all reasonable 
inference which may be fairly drawn from the record. Jack v. Enterprise 
Rent-A-Car Co. of Los Angeles, 899 P.2d 891, 893 (Wyo. 1995). Even so, general 
allegations and conclusory statements are not sufficient to defeat summary 
judgment. Board of County Com'rs of County of Laramie v. Laramie County School 
Dist. Number One, 884 P.2d 946, 956 (Wyo. 1994) (quoting Jones Land and 
Livestock Co. v. Federal Land Bank of Omaha, 733 P.2d 258, 263 (Wyo. 
1987)).

B. 
ANALYSIS

[¶10]   The dispositive issue is whether 
Black Hills owed a duty to confirm the replacement of the bolts in the rig floor 
at the time of reassembly. To establish a claim of negligence, the plaintiff 
must prove the defendant breached a duty owed to the plaintiff which proximately 
caused injuries to the plaintiff. Downen v. Sinclair Oil Corp., 887 P.2d 515, 
520 (Wyo. 1994); Dubray v. Howshar, 884 P.2d 23, 25 (Wyo. 1994). We decide the 
existence of a duty as a matter of law; if a duty has not been established, 
there is no actionable negligence. Thomas By and Through Thomas v. South 
Cheyenne Water and Sewer Dist., 702 P.2d 1303, 1307 (Wyo. 1985).

[¶11]   Appellant does not contest that 
True Drilling employees were responsible for the removal and replacement of the 
bolts in the floor plate. Instead, appellant argues that Black Hills breached 
its duty because the Black Hills truck pusher stood ten to twenty feet from 
where the floor plate was placed and directed the Black Hills crane operators by 
hand signals, yet the floor plate was not properly placed so that the holes were 
in proper alignment. We find that these allegations are insufficient to 
establish a duty owed by Black Hills.

[¶12]   While Black Hills employees 
operated and directed the cranes, True Drilling employees were the persons who 
actually guided the floor plate into place. Black Hills was not hired to conduct 
any inspection of the rig after reassembly was complete; again, that duty fell 
to True Drilling's toolpusher and rig hands. Therefore, Black Hills had no duty 
to secure the bolts or to determine whether True Drilling had done 
so.

[¶13]   The district court found that the 
contention regarding the improper alignment of the floor plate was simply a "red 
herring." We agree. Although shortly after the rig became operational, two rig 
hands were unable to align the bolt holes - this fact is not material. It is 
undisputed that after the accident investigation, True Drilling employees bolted 
the floor plate in a short time without difficulty. True Drilling clearly did 
not require the assistance of Black Hills to secure the floor plate, and 
therefore these contentions are irrelevant to Black Hills' responsibility 
here.

IV. 
CONCLUSION

[¶14]   The only issue in this case is 
whether Black Hills owed a duty to ensure that the floor plate was bolted to its 
supporting structure when the rig was reassembled. There is nothing in the 
record which demonstrates that Black Hills had any responsibility for that 
aspect of the rig reassembly. Therefore, we affirm summary judgment in favor of 
Black Hills.