Title: MacKrell v. Bell H2S SAFETY

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

MacKrell v. Bell H2S SAFETY1990 WY 78795 P.2d 776Case Number: 89-218Decided: 07/23/1990Supreme Court of Wyoming
PAUL MacKRELL, 

APPELLANT 
(PLAINTIFF),

v.

BELL H[2]S SAFETY AND KIM 
BRONDUM, 

APPELLEES 
(DEFENDANTS).

Appeal from the District 
Court of Sweetwater County, Kenneth G. Hamm, J.

William J. 
Flynn, Green River, for appellant.

Thomas A. 
Nicholas of Hirst & Applegate, Cheyenne, for appellees.

Before 
CARDINE, C.J.*, and THOMAS, URBIGKIT, MACY and GOLDEN, 
JJ.

* Chief Justice at time of 
oral argument.

CARDINE, Chief 
Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant Paul 
MacKrell (MacKrell) sued to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from 
a propane gas explosion. He appeals from a summary judgment in favor of 
appellees Bell H[2]S Safety (Bell) and its employee Kim Brondum 
(Brondum).

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

ISSUES

[¶3]      MacKrell states 
the issue as:

"Did the District Court 
err in granting summary judgment for Defendants Bell H[2]S Safety and Kim 
Brondum on the issue of whether their negligent acts were the proximate cause of 
the Plaintiff's injuries?"

[¶4]      Bell and Brondum 
present the issues:

"A. Did the District 
Court correctly decide that there were no genuine issues as to material facts 
and that Bell H[2]S Safety and Kim Brondum were entitled to judgment as a matter 
of law?

"B. Did the District 
Court correctly decide that Defendants were entitled to summary judgment as a 
matter of law because Plaintiff's injuries were the result of an intervening 
cause?"

[¶5]      The justification 
for the enormous delay in processing this matter through the district court is 
not evident from the record. The original complaint was filed on July 28, 1983. 
Summary judgment in favor of Bell and Brondum was entered on July 1, 1985. 
MacKrell had made claims against several other defendants which were not 
disposed of by the summary judgment. A notice of appeal, filed on July 16, 1985, 
was withdrawn on August 21, 1985, for the reason that the judgment appealed from 
was not final. On August 8, 1989, and August 22, 1989, over four years after the 
summary judgment was entered, the district court entered orders dismissing the 
complaints against the other defendants, with prejudice, upon stipulation of the 
parties. The judgment of the district court then became a final appealable 
order, and a notice of appeal was filed on August 22, 1989.

[¶6]      In their motion 
for summary judgment, Bell and Brondum asserted that they owed no duty to 
appellant in the hookup, maintenance, inspection, repair or any aspect of the 
propane gas system; that even if there was a duty and a breach of that duty, 
they were not liable because the proximate cause of appellant's injury was the 
ignition of a cigarette lighter by a coemployee of MacKrell in a trailer 
obviously filled with the propane gas.

FACTS

[¶7]      The motion for 
summary judgment was supported by an affidavit of Brondum, an employee of Bell. 
Brondum arrived at work at 7:00 a.m. on October 24, 1982. Steve Lovett (Lovett), 
another Bell employee, was in the process of hooking up a propane gas line to a 
trailer that belonged to Bell. A "T" was being placed in the gas line leading 
from a propane bottle to the Norton trailer. Once the "T" was in place, turning 
on the flow of gas would result in gas being supplied to both the Bell trailer 
and the Norton trailer. When Brondum took over, Lovett directed him not to turn 
on the gas because the stove burners inside the Norton trailer were turned on. 
Brondum was to contact the Norton toolpusher to have the burners turned off. 
Brondum went to the Norton drilling rig floor and asked the toolpusher to unlock 
the Norton trailer so he could turn off the burners. Brondum was advised by the 
Norton toolpusher that the burners had been turned off and that it was all right 
to turn on the gas. Brondum turned the gas on at 9:30 p.m. that same 
day.

[¶8]      At 3:00 a.m. on 
October 26, 1982, the Norton trailer exploded. Brondum ran to the scene of the 
explosion and found three injured people to whom he rendered first aid and then 
transported two of them to a hospital in Kemmerer. While waiting to be treated, 
the injured Norton workers told Brondum that they had gone into the trailer, 
smelled gas, turned off the burners, opened the windows, then tried to light the 
furnace with a Bic lighter and the trailer exploded.

[¶9]      Lovett's 
affidavit, also filed with the motion for summary judgment, stated that he had 
received permission from the Norton toolpusher to connect a line from the Bell 
trailer to the propane bottle also used by the Norton trailer. He was in the 
process of doing this work when he was relieved by Brondum. Lovett told Brondum 
how to complete the work and that he thought the stove burners in the Norton 
trailer were on. Because the Norton trailer was locked, Lovett instructed 
Brondum to contact the Norton toolpusher to make sure the stove burners were 
turned off before turning on the propane. Lovett also stated that he had no 
responsibility for the Norton trailer or the propane gas service to 
it.

[¶10]   In answer to MacKrell's 
interrogatories, Bell stated that: Brondum was its employee, but denied that it 
or its employees installed a propane gas tank for the Norton trailer; denied 
that it had ever had a propane gas tank installed by it involved in an explosion 
prior to the explosion at the Norton trailer; denied knowing to whom the propane 
gas tank and connecting line belonged, but stated it assumed they belonged to 
Norton; denied that it had the right of control or management over the propane 
gas tank and gas line to the Norton trailer; stated that it had not installed 
the propane gas tank which supplied gas to the Norton trailer; and denied 
knowledge of any regulations or industry standards and any testing or inspection 
standards which apply to the connection of propane gas tanks to trailers. 
Attached to the answers to interrogatories were the statements of Brondum and 
Lovett. They add nothing beyond that which is provided in their 
affidavits.

[¶11]   MacKrell's opposition to the motion 
for summary judgment relied upon the affidavits of Brondum and Lovett in which 
they admitted splicing into the gas line and admitted knowing that the stove 
burners were on in the Norton trailer. MacKrell stated that the gas was turned 
on after checking with the Norton toolpusher, but without doing any further 
inspection or checking, and that when dealing with a dangerous instrumentality, 
like propane gas, the required standard of care must be measured by the hazards 
known to exist.

[¶12]   MacKrell also relied upon his 
deposition in which he stated that, at about 2:00 a.m. on the day of the 
explosion, MacKrell and two other Norton employees went to the trailer to move 
in their belongings. Initially, they were unable to enter the trailer because it 
was locked, but they found another hand who had a key and they entered. When he 
entered the trailer, he could smell gas "real bad"; it burned his eyes and made 
him cough. They opened some windows, and after discovering that the gas was 
coming from the stove burners, turned them off. All three of the men had warned 
each other not to light anything because there was so much gas in the trailer. 
One of the men, who MacKrell identified as Dave, didn't think there was any gas 
in the trailer, although MacKrell and the third workman said, "Yes, there is." 
Although only ten minutes or less had transpired since the men entered the 
trailer, Dave held out a Bic lighter, and despite the attempts of the others to 
stop him, flicked the lighter. MacKrell was immediately engulfed in flames and 
suffered significant injuries. MacKrell's deposition also established that he 
was aware that the stove burners were left on to drain the system before the 
trailer was moved from storage to the location where the explosion took place. 
When asked who had the job of inspecting the trailer once it arrived on site to 
assure it was safe before people moved in, MacKrell responded that it was the 
Norton toolpusher's job and that he was sure it was not done.

[¶13]   The district court determined that 
there was no genuine issue of material fact and that, in accordance with 
W.R.C.P. 56(e), Bell and Brondum were entitled to summary judgment as a matter 
of law. The district court also determined that even if Brondum were negligent, 
the cause of the accident was MacKrell's coemployee Dave igniting a cigarette 
lighter in the trailer that reeked of propane fumes.

DISCUSSION

[¶14]   On review of summary judgment, we 
examine all the information and material presented to the district court. 
Matthews v. Fetzner, 768 P.2d 590, 592 (Wyo. 1989). A detailed exposition of the 
standards we apply in summary judgment cases is found in Thomas v. South 
Cheyenne Water and Sewer Dist., 702 P.2d 1303, 1304 (Wyo. 1985). We are also 
mindful in our resolution of this matter that a higher degree of care is 
required in dealing with a dangerous instrumentality such as propane gas, 
Diamond Management Corp. v. Empire Gas Corp., 594 P.2d 964, 967 (Wyo. 1979), and 
Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Like, 381 P.2d 70, 74 (Wyo. 1963); that summary 
judgments are not favored in negligence actions, Randolph v. Gilpatrick Const. 
Co., Inc., 702 P.2d 142, 146 (Wyo. 1985); and that, although summary judgments 
are not favored in negligence actions, where the record fails to establish an 
issue of material fact, the entry of summary judgment is proper. Conway v. 
Guernsey Cable TV, 713 P.2d 786, 788 (Wyo. 1986).

[¶15]   The elements of negligence are: (1) 
a duty, (2) a violation of that duty, (3) which is the proximate cause of, (4) 
injury to the plaintiff. Thomas, 702 P.2d  at 1307. Our focus in this case is 
upon the element of duty. The determination of duty is a question of law for the 
court. If duty is not established, there is no actionable negligence. Id. In 
this case we are presented with a legal proposition similar to that in the 
Thomas case in which a child was playing in a meter vault excavation. As he was 
climbing out, the vault door fell on his hand causing amputation of two fingers. 
The meter vault and cover were purchased, paid for, and installed by the actual 
landowner on land not owned by the water district. Plaintiffs relied upon an 
expert's affidavit and the operation of W.R.E. 704 to establish a duty on the 
part of the water district. We upheld the summary judgment for the water 
district because we concluded that the expert's affidavit did not establish the 
existence of national standards which imposed a duty on the water district. "A 
bare conclusion as to duty, stating no reasonable basis therefor, is not 
sufficient to prevent entry of summary judgment." Id. at 1307. Similarly, in a 
case inexplicably relied upon by MacKrell, we held that a plaintiff's bald 
statement that a party is negligent is insufficient to create a genuine issue of 
material fact. Bancroft v. Jagusch, 611 P.2d 819, 821 (Wyo. 1980).

[¶16]   In the instant case, MacKrell 
presented absolutely no evidence of national or even local standards concerning 
work on propane gas systems or what the standard of care required under the 
circumstances of this case might be. The uncontroverted evidence was that Bell 
was not in the business of providing and installing propane gas tanks; did not 
provide or install the propane gas tank that was used to service the Bell and 
Norton trailers; and had no right of control or management over the propane gas 
tank and gas line to the Norton trailer or over the Norton trailer itself. 
MacKrell did not deny these facts or present any conflicting evidence to counter 
Bell and Brondum's affidavits. Indeed, his memorandum in opposition to the 
motion for summary judgment appeared to concede that the gas to the Norton 
trailer was turned on only after notice to the Norton toolpusher and after 
receiving specific directions from the Norton toolpusher to turn the gas 
on.

[¶17]   Although the case, Diamond 
Management Corp., 594 P.2d 964, was decided in a trial to the district court on 
an issue of contribution, some of our observations in that case are applicable 
here. We said:

"We emphasize that the 
particular facts of this case occasion the result since they give rise to the 
situation in which reasonable men might differ in determining whether or not a 
distributor of a potentially dangerous product had used `reasonable precaution.' 
The widespread and varied use of propane by [Diamond Management]; the ownership 
and operation of its own intra-organization distribution system; the testimony 
of Donald Albright and other employees of [Diamond Management] that they 
recognized the dangerous nature of propane; the discussions by [Empire] with 
[Diamond Management's] employees; and [Empire's] warning concerning the 
pertinent bottle make a situation in this case which is quite different from 
that which exists between the usual customer of a distributor and the 
distributor." Id. at 969.

Likewise, the 
particular facts of the instant case occasion our result. Bell was not a 
distributor like Empire Gas. Bell did not provide the propane bottle. Before 
turning the gas on, Brondum checked with the Norton toolpusher, whose job it was 
to make sure the trailer was suitable for habitation by Norton employees. Bell 
and Brondum had no access to or responsibility for the Norton trailer. The 
Norton toolpusher directed that the gas be turned on and verified that the stove 
burners, about which the Bell employees were concerned, had been turned off. 
Moreover, MacKrell was aware that the stove burners were turned on to bleed the 
gas lines when the trailer was stored or moved. The accident did not result from 
faulty work, improper inspection, or any other failure on the part of the Bell 
employees, but rather resulted from the fact that the stove burners in the 
locked Norton trailer were turned on by Norton. Under this particular set of 
circumstances, we agree fully with the district court that Bell and Brondum, as 
a matter of law, had no duty to MacKrell which was breached.

[¶18]   MacKrell cites a number of utility 
company cases in support of his argument. The duties imposed upon utility 
companies differ greatly from the duties imposed upon others not actually 
engaged in the business of supplying gas. Thus, we do not consider these cases 
to be pertinent to consideration of this case. For example, in the case Boyce v. 
Northern Utilities Co., 75 Wyo. 500, 297 P.2d 820 (1956), we quoted a general 
rule:

"`If leaks occur through 
the fault of the company, it is liable without actual notice for any resulting 
injury, but, where the leak is due to other causes, and the company has used 
proper care in inspecting its pipes, liability does not attach until the company 
has had notice and a reasonable time to repair, after which it is liable even 
though the pipe where the leak occurred was owned by the consumer.'" Id. 297 P.2d  at 824.

If Bell were a 
utility, still it had no notice that the Norton toolpusher information was 
incorrect - that the burners were on - nor did it have an opportunity to correct 
the problem. MacKrell also cited the case Parkinson v. California Co., 255 F.2d 265 (10th Cir. 1958), but it is also very wide of the mark.

[¶19]   Northwest States Utilities Co. v. 
Brouilette, 51 Wyo. 132, 65 P.2d 223 (1937) (and see Northwest States Utilities 
Co. v. Ashton, 51 Wyo. 168, 65 P.2d 235 (1937), a companion case to Brouilette) 
is, perhaps, at least remotely in point. There we upheld verdicts for plaintiffs 
injured in a gas explosion after finding that there was sufficient evidence from 
which a jury could find negligence on the part of the gas company for failure to 
repair the line and associated equipment after being notified of a leak. 
Finally, in Miller v. New York Oil Co., 34 Wyo. 272, 243 P. 118 (1926), we held 
that the facts found by the district court were supported by substantial 
evidence that installation of a water heater in a bathroom which had no 
ventilation, and which was exhausted through a chimney that was totally clogged, 
established that the defendant failed to use the standard of care required of it 
and was therefore negligent. Id. 243 P.  at 120.

[¶20]   None of these cases provide a basis 
for reversal of the district court's grant of summary judgment for Bell and 
Brondum.

[¶21]   We conclude that the affidavits of 
Bell and Brondum were sufficient to establish no breach of a duty to MacKrell. 
MacKrell's reliance on those affidavits to generate a material fact issue must 
therefore fail absent the presentation of any evidence which contradicts those 
affidavits. Bell and Brondum were not in the business of installing propane gas 
systems. There were no defects in the alterations they made to the propane 
system which served the Norton trailer. The gas was not turned on until after 
Brondum received permission to do so from the Norton toolpusher, as well as 
assurances that the gas was not on in the locked trailer to which Brondum had no 
access and for which he had no responsibility. MacKrell presented no evidence, 
by affidavit or otherwise, which disputed any of these facts. Therefore, we 
agree with the district court that there was no genuine issue of material fact 
and that Bell and Brondum were entitled to judgment as a matter of 
law.

[¶22]   Because we dispose of this case on 
the lack of duty, we need not discuss or decide whether the explosion was the 
result of an intervening cause.

[¶23]   Affirmed.