Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-86-01545/USCOURTS-ca10-86-01545-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Bergkamp
Appellee
Bob Bergkamp Construction Co.
Appellee
Phillips Petroleum Company
Not Party
Phillips Pipe Line
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FI T1 D 

United St.lr~~qrt ef Appeals 

T~nth Cir~uit 

PHILLIPS PIPE LINE COMPANY, 

a corporation, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY, 

a corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ROBERT BERGKAMP; 

and BOB BERGKAMP CONSTRUCTION CO., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

J N . 1 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 86-1545 

(D.C. No. 82-1500) 

(D. Kan.) 

Before McKAY, MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate reco r d, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34 (a); 10th Cir. R. 34.l.8(c) and 

27.1.2. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral 

argument. 

During all times relevant to this lawsuit, the pla int iff, 

Phillips Pipe Line Company (Phillips) owned and operated three 

underground pipelines set in a seventy-five-foot- wide easement 

Appellate Case: 86-1545 Document: 010110024678 Date Filed: 01/21/1988 Page: 1 
that traversed a portion of the pastureland property owned by 

defendant Bob Bergkamp (Bergkamp). These pipelines were situated 

parallel to each other with a space of approximately fifteen feet 

separating them. At the pertinent location, the pipelines ran 

northeast to southwest. The first pipeline was eight inches in 

diameter and was laid in 1932. This was followed by a twelve-inch 

pipeline to the north in 1952 and a sixteen-inch pipeline to the 

south in 1980. 

The 1980 pipeline was laid by Gregory and Cook Construction 

Company (Gregory), a contractor hired by Phillips, during t he la te 

summer of that year. As a consequence of the construction o f th is 

pipeline, a berm was left over a large portion of the ea s emen t . 

There was testimony at the trial which indicated that this berm 

covered at least all three pipelines and at its highest point rose 

twelve inches above the surrounding ground level. The purpose in 

building a berm over the area was to allow the churned up ground 

to eventually settl e to a level flush with the surrounding e arth. 

Upon surveying the comple t ed construction in the easement, 

Bergkamp foresaw some problems with the presence of the berm. 

First, the berm was devoid of grass. To make this strip of land 

useful as pasture again, it had to be reseeded. Second, the berm 

blocked north-flowing drainage into a pond located just north of 

the easement. Bergkamp was concerned that the blockage of 

rainwater into the pond would create a second pond or waterlogged 

area south of the easement that would kill the newly seeded grass 

and increase evaporation of this water resource. To prevent this, 

2 

Appellate Case: 86-1545 Document: 010110024678 Date Filed: 01/21/1988 Page: 2 
Bergkamp decided that a swath had to be cut through the berm to 

restore drainage into the pond. 

During the construction of the 1980 pipeline, Bergkamp 

observed that Gregory was using large earth moving machinery and 

that the pipeline appeared to be laid in a trench six feet deep. 

Bergkamp concedes that he was aware of the presence of all three 

pipelines. In addition, he was on notice that the pipelines were 

roughly parallel as they were legally recorded and a sign was 

posted for each pipeline at every point where it crossed a road. 

It appears that Bergkamp believed, based on his knowledge o f the 

1980 pipeline placement, that all three pipelines were positioned 

a few feet below ground level. 

Bergkamp hired defendant Bob Bergkamp Construction Company 

(BC) to reseed the berm and make the drainage channel through it. 

Bergkamp was a majority shareholder in BC and had about twentyfive years experience in the dirt moving business including work 

over pipelines. Bergkamp did not notify the BC workers that there 

were pipelines in the work area other than the new 1980 line. 

In mid-November 1980, BC commenced its work. It employed 

heavy equipment which was similar to that used by Gregory in 

laying the 1980 pipeline. In shaping the drainage channel BC used 

a scraper machine to skim off a few inches of the topsoil through 

the berm. This was followed by a roadgrader vehicle with a 

scarifier attachment behind it. The scarifier has teeth or prongs 

descending from it which loosen the soil to prepare it for 

seeding. 

3 

Appellate Case: 86-1545 Document: 010110024678 Date Filed: 01/21/1988 Page: 3 
The scarifier came into contact with and 

pipeline. Aviation fuel, flowing through 

pressure, spewed from the opening, but caused 

injuries. After recovery operations were 

determined that its total net loss of fuel 

barrels. 

ruptured the 1952 

the pipeline under 

no explosion or 

completed, Phillips 

amounted to 1806 

Phillips file d suit in district court against Bergkamp and BC 

premising jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship. Phillips 

alleged that Bergkamp and BC were jointly and severally liable for 

their negligent acts which resulted in losses to Phillips. 

Damages of approximately $100,000 were sought as compensation for 

the costs of the lost fuel and the repair work done on the 

pipeline. 

Bergkamp and BC both asserted defenses which essentially 

claimed that Phillips did not comply with the provision of its 

easement which specifically required that "[g]rantee shall bury 

pipe lines below plow depth." They claimed that Phillips' 

negligence in not placing the pipeline properly within its 

easement was a countervailing factor that barred any recovery by 

Phillips. Presumably this negligence would also allow Bergkamp, 

by way of a counterclaim, to be awarded damages for the damages to 

his land. 

The central issue in this case is whether Phillips had 

properly discharged its obligations under its easement with 

respect to the 1952 pipeline which was struck. In other words, 

had Phillips buried the pipeline "below plow depth" as that term 

was defined in 1952? 

4 

Appellate Case: 86-1545 Document: 010110024678 Date Filed: 01/21/1988 Page: 4 
Phillips contends that "below plow depth" is the area below 

the depth at which something might be hit by an ordinary plow or 

below the depth of ordinary agricultural activities. During the 

three-day trial, Phillips attempted to have two expert witnesses 

testify that plow depth in 1952 was about eight to ten inches and 

that any area below that was considered "below plow depth." The 

court allowed Phillips to introduce "relevant" testimony on the 

company's policy or practice, and that of other pipeline 

companies, when burying 

However, the court refused 

pipes "below plow 

to allow Phillips 

depth" in 1952. 

to offer expert 

testimony that the phrase, as used in 1952, meant only the average 

width of a plow blade. 

The trial ended with the district court granting Bergkamp's 

and BC's motion for directed verdict. The court noted that one of 

Phillips' former employees testified that he remembered burying 

pipelines at a depth of eighteen inches when he did such work in 

the early 1950's. The court considered this to be the only 

relevant testimony on the "below plow depth" issue. The c ourt 

also concluded that an additional margin of safety was required 

for lines carrying aviation fuel. 

Directed verdicts should be cautiously and sparingly granted. 

Brown v. Reardon, 770 F.2d 896, 903 (10th Cir. 1985); Dataq, Inc. 

v. Tokheirn Corp., 736 F.2d 601, 603 (10th Cir. 1984). The 

standard for a court considering a directed verdict is best 

summarized as follows: "The question is not whether there is 

literally no evidence supporting the party against whom the motion 

is directed but whether there is evidence upon which the jury 

5 

Appellate Case: 86-1545 Document: 010110024678 Date Filed: 01/21/1988 Page: 5 
could properly find a verdict for that party." Hurd, 734 F.2d at 

499 quoting 9 C. Wright, A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 

§ 2524, at 543. When reviewing the grant of a motion for a 

directed verdict, we must view the evidence and all reasonable 

inferences drawn from that evidence in a light most favorable to 

the nonmoving party. Cockrell v. Boise Cascade Corp., 781 F . 2d 

173, 177 (10th Cir. 1986); Hurd v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 

734 F.2d 495, 498 (10th Cir. 1984). However, the trial court's 

decision will not be reversed unless this court determines that 

the trial court's evaluation of the evidence was clearly 

erroneous. Ewers v. Board of County Cornrn'rs of Curry County, 802 

F.2d 1242, 1247-48 (10th Cir. 1986) rehearing granted in part, 8 13 

F.2d 1583 (10th Cir. 1987); Brown, 770 F.2d at 903. 

In this diversity case regarding rights under an easement 

contract executed in Kansas and concerning Kansas real property, 

Kansas law controls the substantive issues. Thus our construction 

of the disputed terms of the easement must be guided by the 

common-law principl es adopted as law in that jurisdiction. Words 

cannot be written into the agreement imparting an intent that was 

not expressed when it was executed. Quenzer v. Quenzer, 587 P.2d 

880, 882 (Kan. 1978). Nor may the court make an agreement which 

the parties did not make themselves. Duffin v. Patrick, 512 P.2d 

442 (Kan. 1973); Potter v. Northern Natural Gas Co., 441 P.2d 802, 

806 (Kan. 1968). And, most important, if the court finds that the 

contract is unambiguous, the intent of the parties should be 

determined from a consideration of the document itself. Matter of 

Estate of Murphy, 601 P.2d 1096, 1099 (Kan. 1979). 

6 

Appellate Case: 86-1545 Document: 010110024678 Date Filed: 01/21/1988 Page: 6 
It is clear that the trial court was correct when it 

determined that "below plow depth" is a term of art. As such, the 

phrase is not ambiguous, even though resort to expert testimony 

may be required to determine how that term was used at the time 

and what its application to the facts at the site of the easement 

may be. The Kansas Supreme Court has supplied the reference point 

from which that determination must be made. In Rost o cil v . 

Phillips Petroleum Co., 502 P.2d 825, 826 (Kan. 1972), the Court 

stated that the pipeline owner had an "obligation to keep the pipe 

lines buried below plow depth so as not to interfere with normally 

anticipated agricultural practices." (Emphasis supplied). That 

case makes clear that the mere width o f the plow blade is not the 

measure of plow depth. Rather, the term imports a depth 

sufficient to allow for normal cultivation practices of that era 

including concerns about the effects that topography and soil 

conditions may have on the depth the customary tools of "normally 

anticipated agricultural practices'' will pierce the ground. Thus, 

specific testimony about normal agricultural practices mus t take 

into account topography and other related factors peculia r co the 

site. Testimony about whether t he activities causing the damage 

fell within "normal agricultural practices" as understood in 1952 

was also relevant. 

Conflicting testimony was presented concerning what "plow 

depth," as thus defined, would be, as well as how deep the damaged 

pipe was actually buried. This testimonial evidence made a 

directed verdict inappropriate. In addition, Phillips was 

entitled to introduce its expert testimony on the meaning of the 

7 

Appellate Case: 86-1545 Document: 010110024678 Date Filed: 01/21/1988 Page: 7 
term of art as understood at the time the contract was concluded. 

Finally, the court's application of the volatile fuel doctrine was 

error. 

The cause is REVERSED and REMANDED to the trial court for new 

trial. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

8 

Appellate Case: 86-1545 Document: 010110024678 Date Filed: 01/21/1988 Page: 8