Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02569/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02569-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

United States Court of Ap_peiils 

Tenth Cirmit 

JAN 5 - 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

BRANDT DRILLING CO., INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

v. ) No. 88-2569 

) (D.C. No. 88-242-B) 

WILLIAM H. DAVIS, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) ( W. D. Ok la. ) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and GREENE,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable J. Thomas Greene, District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Utah, sitting by designation. 

order 

Plaintiff, Brandt Drilling Co. (Brandt), appeals from an 

of the district court granting summary judgment for 

defendant, William H. Davis, in this tort action seeking damages 

arising out of an explosion and fire at plaintiff's gas well. 

Brandt contends that the accident was caused by the presence of 

gas that had leaked from Davis's neighboring well and migrated 

underground to Brandt's drill site. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-2569 Document: 01019958972 Date Filed: 01/05/1990 Page: 1 
The district court held that, even assuming Brandt could show 

(1) there was a leak in Davis's well, (2) Da v i s was responsible 

for the leak, and (3) gas from the leak migrated to Brandt's well 

and fueled the explosion and fire, the leak "was not the proximate 

cause of the damage to Brandt's rig, but at most created a 

condition [for its occurrence],'' which under Oklahoma law would 

not provide a basis for imposition of liability. See Beesley v. 

United States, 364 F.2d 194, 196 (10th Cir. 1966); Hunt v. 

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 448 P.2d 1018, 1023 (Okla. 1968). 

The court went on to indicate its more specific determination that 

Brandt's drilling operations constituted an intervening, 

superseding cause of the accident, breaking whatever causal nexus 

might have existed between Davis's conduct and Brandt's injury: 

"What did produce the results was Brandt's continued operations 

after it knew of the escape of gas. Even if Brandt could 

sufficiently establish a causal connection between a leak in 

[Davis's] well and the fire at [Brandt's] well, Brandt's, not 

Davis's, acts are the proximate cause of Brandt's damages." On de 

novo review, see High Plains Natural Gas v. Warren Petroleum Co., 

875 F.2d 284, 286 (10th Cir. 1989), we reverse this ruling as 

contrary to established principles of Oklahoma proximate cause 

law. 

"Foreseeability is an essential element of proximate cause in 

Oklahoma, and it is the standard by which proximate cause, as 

distinguished from the existence of a mere condition, is to be 

tested." Atherton v. Devine, 602 P.2d 634, 636 (Okla. 1979); John 

Long Trucking, Inc. v. Greear, 421 F.2d 125, 127 (10th Cir. 1970). 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-2569 Document: 01019958972 Date Filed: 01/05/1990 Page: 2 
Accordingly, intervening conduct will not constitute a superseding 

cause insulating a prior actor from liability unless its 

occurrence was not reasonably foreseeable. Thompson v. 

Presbyterian Hosp., Inc., 652 P.2d 260, 264 (Okla. 1982). We do 

not believe defendant has established beyond reasonable doubt, see 

Ewing v. Amoco Oil Co., 823 F.2d 1432, 1437 (10th Cir. 1987), that 

defendant could not have foreseen plaintiff's drilling operations 

acting as an ignition source for gas that had leaked and migrated 

to plaintiff's rig site. 

Plaintiff raises a number of other issues regarding 

irregularities in the summary judgment proceedings below. While 

these matters may well be important, they do not affect our de 

novo substantive review of the district court's legal analysis of 

the proximate cause issue upon which our present disposition 

turns. See generally Edwards ex rel. Edwards v. Rees, 883 F.2d 

882, 883 (10th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, we do not express an 

opinion on the merits of these additional points on this appeal. 

Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an addendum to its reply 

brief is GRANTED. The judgment of the United States District 

Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is REVERSED and the 

case REMANDED for further proceedings. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-2569 Document: 01019958972 Date Filed: 01/05/1990 Page: 3