Case Title: Van Patten v. Gipson

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-10-0202

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2011-06-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
MICHAEL J. VAN PATTEN v. CORBY GIPSON, JOHN SHARISKY, and MIKE WIXOM2011 WY 98Case Number: S-10-0202Decided: 06/23/2011NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2011

                                                                                                

MICHAEL 
J. VAN PATTEN,Appellant (Plaintiff),v.CORBY GIPSON, JOHN 
SHARISKY, and MIKE WIXOM,Appellees (Defendants).

  
 
 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Sublette County

The 
Honorable Marvin L. Tyler, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

S. 
Joseph Darrah and Christopher M. Brown of Darrah, Darrah & Brown, P.C., 
Powell, Wyoming.  Argument by Mr. 
Darrah.

 
 
Representing 
Appellees:

Jason 
A. Neville and Keith J. Dodson of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., 
Casper, Wyoming.  Argument by Mr. 
Dodson.

 
 
Before 
KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.

 
 
KITE, 
Chief Justice.

 
 
[¶1]  Michael Van Patten was injured while 
working on a drilling rig.  He filed 
suit against several of his co-employees, including Corby Gipson, John Sharisky 
and Mike Wixom, claiming their willful and wanton misconduct caused his 
injuries.  The district court held 
as a matter of law that the co-employees' acts or omissions were not willful and 
wanton and granted their motion for summary judgment.  Mr. Van Patten appeals, claiming there 
were genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment.  We affirm.

 
 
ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]  Mr. Van Patten presents one issue for 
this Court's determination which we restate as follows:

 
 
            
Whether the district court erred in finding that the undisputed material 
facts demonstrate the co-employees' acts or omissions were not willful and 
wanton?

 
 
The 
co-employees state three issues which we paraphrase as 
follows:

 
 

I.              
Whether 
the district court correctly held their conduct did not constitute willful and 
wanton misconduct.

II.            
Whether 
the district court correctly found their violations of H&P International 
Drilling Company's (H&P) policies did not amount to willful and wanton 
misconduct.

III.           
Whether 
the district court correctly held that their individual acts could not be 
combined to establish willful and wanton misconduct on the part of each of 
them.           

 
 
 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]  Mr. Van Patten worked for H&P as an 
entry level floorman.  The 
co-employees also worked for H&P, Mr. Gipson as driller and direct 
supervisor of the rig crew, Mr. Sharisky as assistant driller and Mr. Wixom as 
derrickman.  In May of 2007 they 
were all working on H&P rig 287 in Sublette County, Wyoming.  

 
 
[¶4]  On May 5, 2007, the rig manager directed 
Mr. Gipson and his crew to pressure wash the derrick during their shift.  The crew went to the driller's cabin 
where they discussed the operation and filled out a job safety analysis and 
personnel hoisting pre-job checklist for washing the derrick.  Either Mr. Sharisky or Mr. Wixom told 
Mr. Van Patten to put on the manrider, a harness worn around the torso with a 
board attached to it to sit on.  The 
manrider was used to hoist personnel when work needed to be performed on the 
derrick above the rig floor, in this case washing the derrick.  The manrider was hooked to a cable, the 
tugger line, which ran from a hydraulic hoist located on the rig floor up 
through the derrickboard to the top of the derrick and back down.  One crew member operated a hydraulic 
hoist to turn the tugger line and raise another crew member wearing the manrider 
into the air.  

 
 
[¶5]  At some point after Mr. Van Patten was 
in the manrider but still on the rig floor, the crew realized the tugger line 
had been pulled back out of the way by members of an earlier crew and locked 
with a mechanism called a storm gate located on the bottom of the derrickboard 
so that they could rack pipe without getting tangled in the tugger line.  Unless the tugger line was freed, Mr. 
Van Patten could not reach parts of the derrick with the pressure washer.1  It was decided to raise Mr. Van Patten 
in the manrider up under the derrickboard to open the storm gate and release the 
tugger line.  At the time, no one 
filled out a job safety analysis or personnel hoisting pre-job checklist for 
using the manrider to open the storm gate and free the tugger line.   

 
 
[¶6]  Mr. Wixom operated the hoist to lift Mr. 
Van Patten up beneath the derrickboard.  
Mr. Wixom lost sight of Mr. Van Patten and asked Mr. Sharisky to spot for 
him.  As Mr. Van Patten was 
attempting to open the storm gate to release the cable, Mr. Sharisky thought he 
saw him give the signal to be raised up.  
Mr. Sharisky signaled to Mr. Wixom to hoist Mr. Van Patten up.  As Mr. Wixom did so, Mr. Van Patten was 
pulled into the derrickboard and sustained a compression fracture in his 
thoracic spine.  After the incident, 
Mr. Gipson filled out the personnel hoisting checklist for the task of unlocking 
the storm gate and freeing the tugger line. 

 
 
[¶7]  H&P investigated the accident and 
concluded the crew, and specifically the driller, Mr. Gipson, violated company 
procedure by allowing Mr. Van Patten to be lifted to the derrickboard to open 
the storm gate and free the tugger line without filling out a personnel hoisting 
pre-job checklist.  H&P docked 
Mr. Gipson's pay $1.00 per hour for a two week period.  No action was taken against any other 
employees involved in the incident.   

 
 
[¶8]  Mr. Van Patten filed a complaint 
alleging his co-employees2 acted recklessly, willfully and 
wantonly in various ways, including failing to perform a job safety analysis or 
obtain a permit before hoisting him in the manrider to release the tugger line, 
failing to instruct him on proper procedure for opening the storm gate, using 
the manrider instead of the ladder to ascend the derrick and open the storm 
gate, and operating the hydraulic hoist when he was under the derrickboard.  The co-employees answered the complaint 
and the parties proceeded with discovery.  
The co-employees then filed a motion for summary judgment alleging there 
were no genuine issues of material fact supporting the claim that they acted 
willfully and wantonly and they were entitled to judgment as a matter of 
law.  The district court convened a 
hearing and, after considering the parties' respective positions, granted the 
co-employees' motion.  Mr. Van 
Patten timely appealed.

 
 
 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶9]  When reviewing an order granting summary 
judgment, we consider the record de 
novo.  M & M Auto Outlet v. Hill Inv. 
Corp., 2010 WY 56, ¶ 11, 230 P.3d 1099, 1104 (Wyo. 
2010).  Our duty is identical to 
that of the district court, we review the same material and we follow the same 
standards.  Id.  Summary judgment is appropriate if there 
are no genuine issues of material fact and the prevailing party is entitled to 
judgment as a matter of law.  Id.  We consider the record in the light most 
favorable to the party opposing the motion, giving that party all favorable 
inferences that can be drawn from the facts contained in the affidavits, 
depositions and other material properly appearing in the record.   Id.   

 
 
 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶10]  The rights and remedies set forth in the 
Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act for an employee injured in the course of his 
or her employment are in lieu of other remedies against the employer and 
co-employees, "unless the employees intentionally act to cause physical harm or 
injury to the injured employee."  
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-104(a) (LexisNexis 2009).  This Court has equated the phrase 
"intentionally act to cause physical harm or injury" to the concept of "willful 
and wanton misconduct."  Bertagnolli v. Louderback, 2003 WY 50, ¶ 15, 67 P.3d 627, 632 (Wyo. 2003).  Thus, to survive the co-employees' 
motion, Mr. Van Patten was required to submit evidence establishing that genuine 
issues of material fact existed as to whether their acts or omissions were 
willful and wanton.  To make that 
showing, Mr. Van Patten had to submit evidence showing the co-employees had 
knowledge of the dangerous condition and demonstrated a disregard of the danger 
through intentional acts.  Id., ¶ 19, 67 P.3d  at 634.  

 
 
[¶11]  We applied this standard in Bertagnolli to conclude the evidence 
demonstrated the existence of factual issues precluding summary judgment.  Mr. Bertagnolli worked in a trona mine 
in Sweetwater County.  He presented 
evidence that his supervisor instructed him to work in the shuttle belt area of 
the mine while the shuttle belt was operating.  When he said he would not work in the 
area unless the belt was locked out, his supervisor told him that he could be 
fired if he did not do the job as instructed.  Mr. Bertagnolli asked that the union 
steward be contacted to resolve the issue.  However, while waiting for the union 
steward, he began the work he had been told to do because he believed he would 
be fired otherwise.  As he was 
working, the rail car started to travel back toward him, the cable beneath his 
feet began to move, he tripped, and his right foot caught in the pinch point 
between a steel cable and sheave wheel, severing the back of his foot.  We reversed the order granting summary 
judgment, finding that the evidence Mr. Bertagnolli presented raised genuine 
issues of material fact as to his supervisors' knowledge of the dangers of 
working in the shuttle belt area while it was operating and whether they 
intentionally disregarded those dangers when they required Mr. Bertagnolli to 
work in the area without locking out the belt. 

 
 
[¶12]  In Hannifan v. American Nat'l Bank of 
Cheyenne, 2008 WY 65, 185 P.3d 679 (Wyo. 2008), we 
applied the Bertagnolli standard to 
uphold a jury verdict finding the acts and omissions of two co-employee 
supervisors to be willful and wanton.  
Leslie Butts was operating a large piece of machinery in a narrow boxcut 
on the floor of an open pit mine when a rock fell from a high side wall and 
landed on top of the machinery, leaving him a paraplegic.  His supervisors claimed it was an 
extremely unusual event and that the rock shot out of the wall fifty-three feet 
into the center of the pit without ever hitting any of the catch benches 
intended to catch rubble that sloughed off the walls.  Mr. Butts presented evidence that an 
official report indicated the pit was "scary" earlier in the day, other 
employees had told the supervisors they would not work in the area, and earlier 
sloughs had hit machinery in the middle of the pit and blocked traffic.  He also presented evidence that the 
catch benches were full and, therefore, ineffective in guarding against the 
danger of sloughs; unlike every other area of the mine, there were no catch 
benches on the high walls above the boxcut; the machinery he was operating did 
not have required equipment that would have protected him; the boxcut was 
narrower, the high walls were steeper and the catch benches were not in 
compliance with the mine control plan; although other employees expressed 
concern to the supervisors about the dangerous condition of the pit, the 
supervisors decided against closing the area down; and the injury of another 
employee in an earlier slough incident provided warning of problems with the 
high walls but no action was taken to address the problems.    

 
 
[¶13]  In Loredo v. Solvay America, Inc., 2009 WY 93, 212 P.3d 614 (Wyo. 2009), we upheld 
a district court's order granting summary judgment for a co-employee supervisor 
finding there were no disputed facts on the issue of whether he acted willfully 
and wantonly to cause the injury.  
Mr. Loredo was employed by a mine to drive metal bolts into the rock 
ceiling to prevent collapse or falling rock.  His bolter became stuck and he attempted 
to free it by moving it backward and forward.  As he worked to free the bolter, he 
inadvertently drove under the unbolted ceiling.  A slab of rock fell and hit him, leaving 
him a quadriplegic.  Mr. Loredo 
presented evidence that he expressed concern to his supervisor about his 
defective bolter and the supervisor advised him to go ahead and use it and they 
would fix it during the down shift.  
He claimed he raised safety concerns with his supervisor who willfully, 
wantonly and intentionally disregarded them.  After reviewing the evidence in the 
light most favorable to Mr. Loredo, including evidence that his supervisor 
complied with the mine's roof bolting plan and assured Mr. Loredo that the roof 
bolter would be fixed during the down shift, we concluded the district court 
properly granted summary judgment. 

 
 

[¶14]  Most recently, in Formisano v. Gaston, 2011 WY 8, 246 P.3d 286 (Wyo. 2011), we 
affirmed an order granting summary judgment to a co-employee, concluding there 
were no factual issues for a jury as to whether he intentionally acted to cause 
harm to the plaintiff.  Mr. 
Formisano was injured when he and Mr. Gaston were returning from a work site 
late at night in a company vehicle, Mr. Gaston fell asleep at the wheel and the 
vehicle went off the road and into a ditch.  Testimony was presented that Mr. 
Gaston 
violated company policy by driving when he was too tired to do so safely and 
could have called for replacements rather than working late to finish the job, 
could have called to have someone drive them from the job site, or could have 
obtained permission to stay in a motel near the site.   We stated:

 
 

Being 
tired, but "feeling okay," Gaston got in the driver's seat after a long day's 
work, intending to drive home to Gillette, less than two hours away.  Even assuming that some of the late 
hours of work could have been avoided by Gaston, we do not see this conduct as 
meeting the test for co-employee liability under the Wyoming Worker's 
Compensation Act.  While there 
certainly was some possibility of Gaston falling asleep and causing an accident, 
we cannot say that Gaston intentionally acted to cause physical harm to 
Formisano, or that these circumstances were such "that a reasonable person would 
know, or have reason to know, that such conduct would, in a high degree of 
probability, result in harm to another."  

 
 

Id., 
¶ 26, 246 P.3d  at 293.

 
 
[¶15]  With this precedent in mind, we turn to 
consideration of the evidence presented in the current case, viewing it in the 
light most favorable to Mr. Van Patten.  
Mr. Van Patten testified that he arrived at the rig at 5:30 p.m. on May 
5, 2007.  He attended the safety 
meeting where the rig manager instructed the crew members to wash the derrick 
during their shift.  Mr. Van Patten 
and Mr. Gipson testified there was no discussion at the meeting about how the 
crew was to go about washing the derrick.  
Mr. Gipson testified specifically that the rig manager who conducted the 
meeting did not mention that the crew would have to free the tugger line from 
the storm gate in order to clean the derrick.  

 
 
[¶16]  Mr. Van Patten testified that he left 
the meeting, performed some other tasks and then Mr. Sharisky told him that Mr. 
Gipson wanted him to start washing the derrick.  Mr. Van Patten testified that he had 
washed the rig before, the pressure washer was standard equipment and he was 
comfortable using it.  He testified 
that either Mr. Sharisky or Mr. Wixom told him to put on the manrider.  He had used the manrider a couple of 
times before and knew how to put it on, but he had not previously worn it when 
washing the rig.  After he was in 
the manrider, Mr. Wixom attached him to the tugger line with a hook located on 
the front of the harness.  Mr. Wixom 
hooked a safety line to the back of the harness and Mr. Van Patten tied the 
pressure washer to one of the harness straps.    

 
 
[¶17]  Mr. Van Patten testified that after he 
was hooked up, Mr. Gipson signaled to Mr. Wixom from the driller's cabin and 
said that he wanted the washing to start in the vicinity of the draw works.  Mr. Van Patten testified that in order 
to accomplish that, they had to free the tugger line from the storm gate where 
the earlier crew had placed it while they racked pipe.  Mr. Van Patten had not previously worked 
in the derrickboard area nor had he opened or closed a storm gate.  He testified that he asked Mr. Sharisky 
and perhaps Mr. Wixom whether they needed to do a second job safety analysis and 
get a manrider permit.3  They responded that the rig was not in 
operation, nothing was running, they needed to get the rig cleaned and they 
would fill out the forms later.  Mr. 
Van Patten testified that Mr. Sharisky and Mr. Wixom seemed comfortable going 
ahead with having him free the tugger line without a job safety analysis and 
permit and so he was comfortable, too; he did not feel unsafe.  He testified that if he had been 
concerned about the safety of what he was instructed to do, he would have said 
so.    

 
 
[¶18]  Mr. Van Patten testified that he untied 
the pressure washer and left it on the rig floor.  He said Mr. Wixom unhooked the safety 
harness and ran him up the tugger line to underneath the derrickboard to open 
the storm gate and free the tugger line.  
When Mr. Van Patten was up as far as he could go under the derrickboard, 
he signaled for Mr. Wixom to stop.  
He tried to open the storm gate but could not get it loose.  The next thing he knew, he was being 
raised up again.  His head hit the 
derrickboard, knocking his hard hat off.  
As the hoist continued to pull him upward, his body was smashed against 
the derrickboard.  He yelled and Mr. 
Wixom stopped the hoist.  Mr. Van 
Patten then felt himself being lowered down to the rig floor.  He testified that he asked Mr. Wixom and 
Mr. Sharisky what happened and Mr. Sharisky said he thought he saw Mr. Van 
Patten signaling to be raised up.  
Mr. Van Patten testified he told them he had not signaled; he was trying 
to get the storm gate open. 

 
 
[¶19]  Mr. Gipson was in the driller's cabin 
when Mr. Wixom hoisted Mr. Van Patten up to the derrickboard to release the 
tugger line.  He testified that he 
did not see Mr. Van Patten hit the derrickboard; he only saw Mr. Sharisky 
running and a hard hat falling.  Mr. 
Sharisky testified that he had asked Mr. Wixom to fill in for him at the hoist 
while he went to the bathroom and had not returned to the rig floor when the 
decision was made to use the manrider to free the tugger line or when Mr. Wixom 
began hoisting Mr. Van Patten up to the derrickboard.  

 
 
[¶20]  Mr. Sharisky and Mr. Wixom testified 
that Mr. Sharisky was in the driller's cabin when Mr. Wixom indicated he needed 
a spotter.  Mr. Sharisky testified 
he went to assist and saw Mr. Van Patten up near the derrickboard.  He testified that he told Mr. Wixom to 
stop the hoist.  He saw Mr. Van 
Patten raise and lower the storm gate with his left hand while holding onto the 
tugger line with his right hand.  He 
then saw him grab the tugger line with his left hand and raise his right hand to 
signal "up."  Mr. Sharisky signaled 
Mr. Wixom to raise him up easy.  
Within seconds, he saw Mr. Van Patten's hard hat fall off, and told Mr. 
Wixom to lower him to the floor.     

 
 
[¶21]  Mr. Wixom's testimony was similar to Mr. 
Sharisky's except that he thought he remembered Mr. Sharisky being part of the 
discussion about using the manrider to lift Mr. Van Patten to free the tugger 
line.  Mr. Wixom testified that he 
thought Mr. Sharisky returned to the driller's cabin after that discussion and 
then came back to the rig floor when Mr. Wixom needed a spotter.  He testified Mr. Sharisky came back up 
on the floor and signaled him to raise Mr. Van Pattern up slow and easy.  Mr. Wixom testified the hard hat fell 
and Mr. Sharisky told him to stop and bring Mr. Van Patten down.      

 
 
[¶22]  Mr. Van Patten testified he had no 
reason to believe his co-employees acted intentionally when they caused him to 
be raised and smashed into the derrickboard.  He said he had no evidence that they 
intentionally sent him up the tugger line in the manrider thinking that he would 
get hurt.  However, he testified 
that Mr. Gipson, Mr. Sharisky and Mr. Wixom failed to properly plan the 
operation after it was decided to hoist him up to free the tugger line in the 
manrider.  Mr. Van Patten testified 
that they did not complete the required forms before sending him up to release 
the tugger line because they were in a hurry.  

 
 
[¶23]  As driller, Mr. Gipson was responsible 
for determining whether or not the manrider should be used.  He testified he believed the manrider 
was the safest, easiest way to release the tugger line.  He said he would not have allowed it if 
he had felt it was unsafe.  He also 
testified it was routine for someone to ride up on the tugger line in the 
manrider to open a storm gate.  He 
testified he did not know until H&P docked his pay after Mr. Van Patten was 
injured that he had violated company policy by not using the alternative means 
of sending someone up the derrick ladder to release the tugger line from the top 
of the derrickboard.  Mr. Gipson 
acknowledged that job safety analyses and job checklists were to be filled out 
before a job commenced.  He also 
acknowledged the H&P policy stating that hoisting a crew member with a 
manrider was to be done only when there was no other less hazardous means to 
accomplish the task.    

 
 
[¶24]  Mr. Sharisky testified that when he came 
onto the rig floor and saw Mr. Van Patten in the manrider below the derrickboard 
his first thought was that Mr. Van Patten would not be able to release the 
tugger line while in the manrider because it was hooked to the same line he was 
trying to release.  Even so, Mr. 
Sharisky testified he did not stop the operation because he thought he saw Mr. 
Van Patten performing the task.  He 
testified he would have stopped it if he had thought it was unsafe.  He also testified that Mr. Van Patten 
could have signaled to be brought down at any point and was obligated to do so 
if he felt it was not safe.  Mr. 
Sharisky testified that it was his job to fill out the pre-job checklist for 
using the manrider and in order to do that he would have had to inspect and 
possibly should have seen that the tugger line was behind the storm gate.  Mr. Sharisky acknowledged that the 
ladder could have been used to get a man to the derrickboard to release the 
tugger line.  

 
 
[¶25]  Mr. Wixom testified that although he 
ended up operating the tugger line hoist in Mr. Sharisky's absence, he was 
working that night as floorhand just like Mr. Van Patten and had no supervisory 
authority over him.  Mr. Wixom also 
testified he had removed the tugger line from the storm gate in a manrider two 
or three times himself before Mr. Van Patten's injury.  He testified he did not recall anyone on 
the night Mr. Van Patten was injured expressing a safety concern about using the 
manrider to free the tugger line.  
He testified that if anyone had expressed concern they would have found 
an alternative means of performing the operation.  He also testified that in his experience 
job safety analyses were sometimes discussed before a task was performed and 
written up later.            

 
 
[¶26]  H&P conceded that a written job 
safety analysis and pre-job checklist for personnel hoisting were not completed 
at the time the operation was modified from using the manrider to hoist Mr. Van 
Patten simply to wash the derrick, to using it to hoist him to open the storm 
gate.  In its report concerning the 
decision to dock Mr. Gipson's pay, H&P stated that he had agreed the 
incident "that occurred because of failing to fill out the checklist was his 
fault as a result of his poor planning."  
Also, in a post-investigation memo, H&P listed the following lessons 
learned from the incident:

 
 

(1)          
Never 
use the rig floor hoist as a means of transportation to a stationary area up in 
the derrick, such as the derrickboard; 

(2)          
Utilize 
fixed ladders, portable ladders and stairs where available to access work 
stations and equipment in the  mast; 

(3) 
conduct manriding operations only as a last resort when no other means of egress 
into the mast is available; 

(4) 
Reminder: Per H&P's written personnel hoisting/manriding procedure Rig 
Managers are the designated supervisor for all non-routine manriding 
operations.  Non-routine manriding 
operations require[] the Rig Manager's written approval on the personnel 
hoisting checklist.  Opening a storm 
gate is a non-routine task. 

(5)       When the 
job scope changes, (i.e. from pressure washing the lower section of the mast to 
opening the storm gate at the derrickboard), assess the hazards associated with 
the new task before starting the new task. 

 
 
[¶27]  Viewing this evidence in the light most 
favorable to Mr. Van Patten, we conclude no genuine issues of material fact 
existed and the co-employees were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the 
claim that they acted willfully and wantonly.  No evidence was presented showing that 
any of the co-employees intentionally acted to cause Mr. Van Patten physical 
harm.  Nor was evidence presented 
showing that they had knowledge of, and intentionally disregarded, the danger 
associated with using the manrider to open the storm gate.   

 
 
[¶28]  As reflected above, Mr. Van Patten 
testified that he had no evidence and no reason to believe that in using the 
manrider to open the storm gate his co-employees acted intentionally to harm him 
or with knowledge of the danger.   
Mr. Gipson testified that he believed the manrider was the safest way to 
release the tugger line and would not have allowed it if he had felt it was 
unsafe.  He also testified use of 
the manrider to open the storm gate was routine and he did not know until after 
Mr. Van Patten was injured that it violated company policy.  

 
 
[¶29]  Mr. Sharisky similarly testified that if 
he had thought using the manrider to open the storm gate was unsafe, he would 
have stopped it.  Mr. Wixom 
testified that if anyone had voiced a concern that what they were doing was 
unsafe, the crew would have found an alternative means to unlock the storm 
gate.  Mr. Wixom also testified that 
prior to Mr. Van Patten's injury he had used a manrider to remove the tugger 
line from the storm gate two or three times himself.  

 
 
[¶30]  This simply is not the sort of evidence 
this Court has found demonstrates willful and wanton misconduct.  Unlike the evidence in Bertagnolli, there was no evidence in 
the present case that Mr. Van Patten said he would not use the manrider to free 
the tugger line, pointed out the danger of doing so or expressed concern for his 
safety.  In contrast to Bertagnolli, where there was evidence 
that no worker was allowed to work in the shuttle belt area unless it was 
locked, evidence was presented in this case that other workers had used the 
manrider to unlock the storm gate.  
While there seems to be no question that H&P's written policies 
authorized use of the manrider only when there was no alternative, evidence was 
presented that it was fairly common practice to use it to open the storm 
gate.  Even the rig manager 
testified that he had used a manrider to release a tugger line from a storm 
gate, they did it all the time, and he thought he could do it safely.  Moreover, unlike the situation in Hannifan, where supervisors were warned 
about the danger by the:  (1) injury 
of another employee; (2) refusal of other employees to work in the area; and, 
(3) expressions of concern to supervisors by still other employees, the 
co-employees here had no such warning.    

 
 
[¶31]  In support of his assertion that his 
co-employees acted willfully and wantonly, Mr. Van Patten relies heavily on 
H&P's written policies and after the fact statements by upper level H&P 
employees who were not present on the rig or involved in using a manrider.  In light of the testimony of those who 
were involved, these policies and statements did not establish a genuine issue 
of material fact on the question of whether the co-employees knew the operation 
was dangerous and intentionally disregarded the danger.  We affirm the order granting summary 
judgment to the co-employees.   

 
 

FOOTNOTES

1The testimony differed as to when the crew realized the tugger line was 
behind the storm gate and would have to be released in order to reach parts of 
the derrick with the pressure washer.  
An H&P memorandum written after the fact stated the rig manager told 
the crew at the 5:30 p.m. meeting on May 5, 2007, that a man would have to go up 
the derrick ladder to open the storm gate and release the tugger line.  No one on the crew, including Mr. Van 
Patten, remembered the statement.  

     Mr. Van 
Patten testified that before he went up in the manrider, Mr. Gipson decided he 
wanted him to start washing the derrick in the area of the draw works.  Mr. Van Patten testified that decision 
caused the scope of the operation to change from simply lifting him with the 
tugger line to wash the derrick, to lifting him initially up to the derrickboard 
to free the tugger line.  According 
to Mr. Van Patten, he was only lifted once and that is when he was injured. 

     In 
contrast, Mr. Wixom testified that he helped Mr. Van Patten into the manrider, 
gave him the pressure washer and hoisted him up the tugger line to begin washing 
the derrick.  He testified that 
about forty to fifty feet up, Mr. Van Patten signaled for him to stop and bring 
him down.  Mr. Wixom testified that 
when Mr. Van Patten was down they discussed the need for someone to go to the 
derrickboard and release the tugger line.  
He testified they discussed how to best accomplish that and decided to 
lift Mr. Van Patten in the manrider and have him release the tugger line.  Several other witnesses also testified 
that they saw Mr. Van Patten going up the tugger line and coming immediately 
back down before he was injured.  
The conflicting evidence concerning when the crew realized the tugger 
line was behind the storm gate does not affect our resolution of the question of 
whether a factual issue existed on the claim that the co-employees' actions were 
willful and wanton.            

2Mr. Van Patten named several other co-employees in his complaint.  After conducting discovery, the parties 
stipulated to their dismissal and the district court so ordered. 

3It is not clear what Mr. Van Patten meant by a manrider "permit." We 
presume he meant the personnel hoisting pre-job checklist.