Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02273/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02273-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Champlin Petroleum Company
Appellee
Dean Schulte
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED 

United Scates Court of Appeals ·r.orirh (i,...,,;t 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

SEP 1 8 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

DEAN SCHULTE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

CHAMPLIN PETROLEUM COMPANY, 

a corporation; and DOES ONE 

through TEN, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 88-2273 

) (D.C. No. 87-C-702S) 

) ( D. Utah) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, TACHA, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

This is an appeal from an order of the district court 

granting summary judgment for defendant Union Pacific Resources 

Company ("UPR," formerly Champlin Petroleum Company) on a tort 

claim brought by plaintiff to recover for injuries caused by the 

* 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: 88-2273 Document: 01019973787 Date Filed: 09/18/1989 Page: 1 
explosion of an oil well owned by UPR. The district court held 

that UPR, which had hired plaintiff's employer to service the 

well, was a "statutory employer" within the meaning of the Utah 

Code Ann. § 35-1-42 and, therefore, is entitled to immunity from 

tort liability to plaintiff under Utah Code Ann. §§ 35-1-60 and 

62. In the course of its ruling, the district also rejected 

plaintiff's request that disposition of this case be stayed 

pending the Utah Supreme Court's resolution of Pate v. Marathon 

Steel Co., No. 20485, 110 Utah Adv. Rep. 3 (Utah filed June 6, 

1989), which presented issues similar to those raised herein 

concerning application of the cited provisions of the Utah 

Workers' Compensation Act. 

By motion seeking summary reversal and remand, see 10th Cir. 

R. 27.2.1, plaintiff has notified this court of the recent 

decision in Pate, wherein the Utah Supreme Court determination 

"that the legislature has in clear and unmistakable language [in 

1975 amendment to§ 35-1-62) evinced an intention to allow suits 

by an injured worker against those persons who might be his or her 

statutory employer as defined in section 35-1-42." Id., slip op. 

at 6. We have just held that Pate is to be given retroactive 

application to pending cases. See Lamb v. W-Energy, Inc., No. 87-

-1930, F.2d (10th Cir. filed , 1989). Accordingly, 

insofar as the district court's disposition of the instant action 

in favor of UPR is based upon its conclusion that the state 

workers' compensation 

employers who have not 

act 

been 

provides immunity for 

required to pay benefits 

claimant thereunder, see id., it cannot stand. 

2 

statutory 

to the 

Appellate Case: 88-2273 Document: 01019973787 Date Filed: 09/18/1989 Page: 2 
Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. The judgment of the United 

States District Court for the District of Utah is REVERSED and the 

cause is REMANDED for further proceedings. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-2273 Document: 01019973787 Date Filed: 09/18/1989 Page: 3