i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 03 6- CV J ose Jorge MORENO and Ana lisa Moreno,

Ap pe lla nts
v . BP A MERICA P RODUCTION COMP ANY , BP Amer ica, Inc., B P Products North America , I nc., B P Pi pelines (Nor

th America ), Inc., B P North America n Petroleum, I nc., and Pat Aube , Appellee s Fr om the 343rd Judi cial District Court, McMullen County , Texas

Trial Court No. M-06-0005-CV- C Honora ble J anna Whatley , J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice Sitt ing: Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice

Catherine Stone, Justi ce Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: September 10, 2008 AFF I RMED J ose Jorge (“G eorg e”) Moreno wa s injured when a conductor

pipe rolled ove r him, injuring him. Geor g e and Analisa Moreno appea l the t rial court’s order g ranting summary judgme nt in favor of BP Am eri ca P rod uct io n C om pan y , BP Am eri ca, I nc. , BP P rod uc t s N o r t h A m eri ca, I nc. , BP Pip e lin e s (No rt

h A me ri c a ), I nc ., B P No rt h A me ri c an Pe tr ole um, I nc ., and Pa t A ub e (c oll e c tiv e ly ref er r e d to h e r e in a s “ B P” )
. T h e M o r e n o s a s s e rt t h a t t h e tr ia l c o u rt e r

r e d in g r an ti n g s u mma ry judgme nt beca

use the c onductor pipe was not an improvement to rea l property ; theref ore, Chapte r04
- 08
- 00 03 6- CV

- 2- 95 of the Te x as Civil P rac tice and Re medies Code did not apply to their claims. I n the alter native, t h e M orenos c ontend that B P failed to conc lusively establish that BP: (1) did not exercise control
ov e r t he wo rk be ingpe rf

or me d; an d (2) did no t hav e a c tua l know le dg e of the c on dit ion

re su lti ngin the inj ur y . We a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

B ACKG ROUND BP re tained Conductor, Inc. to drill and set conduc tor pipe for a we ll sit e. Georg e More no
wa s a n e mpl oy e e of

Con du c tor , Inc . Pat Aub e wa s re ta ine d by B P a s a c on su lta nt f or the we ll s ite prepa ration. Conductor, I nc. transported conductor pipe to the we ll sit e on a f latbed truc k. The pipe w as in forty -foot sec tions, and Conductor, I nc. had to w eld two sections toge ther to f inish it s job. Each section we ighe d approximately 1,700 pounds. Aube testified that he had inst ructe d Conductor, I nc. to use a c rane to remove the condu ct o r p i p e from the truck a nd to place the pipe into the hole. I nstead of w aiting f

or the c rane to be deliver ed to the well site, employ ees of Conductor, I nc. used a bobcat to unload and move the c onductor pipe. Matthew Crook, the supervisor for Conductor, I nc. at the we ll sit e, wa s moving a section of pipe with the bobcat whe n it rolled over Ge org e More no, inj ur inghim
. S TA N D A R D O F R EVIEW A traditional motion for summary judgme nt is properly g rante d only

when the mova

nt
e sta bli sh e s t hat th ere are no g e nu ine iss ue s o f m a te ri a l f a c t and that th e mov ant i s e nti tle d to judgme nt as a matter

of law on a

g round expressly

set forth in the motion. Joe v. T wo Thi rty Nine J oin t V e ntu re , 1 45 S.W. 3d 15 0, 15 6 (T e x. 20 04 ). I n re vie wi ng the g ra nt o f a su mma ry jud g me nt, we indulg e eve ry

rea sonable infere n ce and re solve any doubt in favor of

the non-movant. Id
. Additionally , we a ssume all evidenc e fa vorable to the non-movant as true
. Id
.04
- 08
- 00 03 6- CV

- 3- A PPLI C A BILITY O F C HAP T E R 95 Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedie s Code was e nacte d in 1996 as part of
a s we ep i ng tort-re form pac kag e. Ellwood T ex. F orge Corp. v. Jone

s , 2 1 4 S. W. 3 d

6 9 3 , 6 9 9 ( T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th D ist .] 20 07 , p e t. d e nie d) ; Chi Energy, Inc . v. Urias , 1 5 6 S
. W
. 3 d 8 7 3, 878 (T e x. Ap p. —E l Pa so 20 05 , p e t. d e nie d) . Ch a pte r 9 5 a pp lie s o nly

to a c la im: (1) a g ainst a prope rty owner , contra ctor, or subcontrac tor for personal inj ury , death, or prope rty

damag e to an owne r, a c ontrac tor, or a subc ontrac tor or an employ ee of a contr actor

or subcontra ctor; and (2) that a rises fr om the condition or use of an improvement t o rea l proper ty wher e the co n t ra ctor or subc ontrac tor construc ts, repair s, renovates or modifies the improvement. T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 95.002 (Ve rnon 2005). Under Chapter 95, a

proper ty owner is n ot l ia ble fo r a ny inj ur y to a c on tr a c to r or an emp loy e e of a c on tr a c tor

wh o c on str

uc ts, re pa ir s,
renovates, or modifies an improve ment to rea l property unless: (1) the pr operty

owner exercises or reta ins control over the manner in which the wor

k is perfor

med; and (2) the prope rty o wner had actua l knowledg e of the dange r or condition resulting in the i njury . T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 95.003 (Ve rnon 2005). The More nos assert that Chapte r 95 is inapplicable to their cla ims because the conduc tor pipe that r oll e d o ve r G e or g e Mo re no wa s n ot a n im pr ov e me nt t o r e a l pr op e rt y . T e xas c ourt s o f a

pp e a l, ho we ve r, have un anim ou sly c on str ue d Cha pte r 95 br oa dly and he ld that the inj ur y do e s n ot h a ve to d i r e c t l y r e s u l tf

r o m t h e o b

j e c to nw h i c h a

p l a i n t i f f i s w o r k i n g i no r d e r

f o r C h a p t e r 9 5 t o a p p l y. W illiamson v. Paccar, Inc

. , 2007 WL 2264720, at *3 (E.D. T ex. Aug. 6, 2007) . Although the injuries alleg ed must relate to work beingdone by the i njured party , Chapter 95 does not require that the improvement’s c ondition or use actua lly cause the injury
. See Clark v . Ron Bassinger, Inc. , No.04
- 08
- 00 03 6- CV

- 4- 07-03-0291- CV, 2006 WL 229901, at *2 (Te x . Ap p . — Am arillo J an. 31, 2006, no pet.) (applying Cha pte r 9 5 to cla ims by c on tr a c tor ’s e mpl oy e e wh o f e ll thr ou g h a

sk y lig ht o pe nin g on

a ro of wh ile
wo rk ingfo r a

c on tr a c tor e ng a g e d in c on str uc tin g a ho us e ) ( me m. o p. ); Phillips v. The Dow Chem. Co. , 186 S.W .3d 121, 131-32 (Tex . App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (a pply ing Cha

pter 95 to a claim by

contra ctor’s e mploy ee w ho fell from scaf folding used to ac cess a

n improvement being
re pa ir e d) ; Fi

sh e r v . Le e & Cha ng

P’ sh ip , 16 S.W .3d 198, 200-02 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (applying Cha pter 95 to cla ims by

contra ctor’s e mploy ee w ho fell fr om a ladder
us e d to a c c e ss r oo f- mou

nte d a ir c o nd iti on ingun its be ingre pa ir e d) ; see also Spears v . Crown Central Petroleum Corp. , 133 Fe d. Appx. 129, 2005 WL 1287050, at *1-2 (5th Cir. June 1, 2005) (applying Chapter 9 5 to c la im

b y c o n tr a c to r ’ s e mp lo y e e ar is in g f r o m h is tr ip p in g o v e r

s te e l- b r a id e d

hoses wh ile pe rf

or min g ma int e na

nc e a t a re fi ne ry

). I t is un dis pu te d that Con du c tor , Inc . w a s e ng a g e d in the c on str uc tio n, re pa ir , r e no vatio n, or mod if ic a tio n of an imp ro ve me nt to re a l pr op e rt y , i.e ., a n o il
and g a s w e ll. B e c a

us e Mo re no ’s inj ur ie s r e la te to t his wo rk , Ch a

pte r 9 5 a pp lie s. C ONT ROL AND A C TUA L K NOWLE DGE Un d er C h ap t er 9 5 , t h e M o re n o s h adt h e b u rd en t o s h o w b o t h co n t ro l an d ac tu al kn o wl ed ge
o f th e d an g e r in o r d e r f

o r B P to b e li a

ble. E l l w o o d T

exas Forge Corp. , 2 14 S.W. 3d a t 70 0; Chi Energy, I nc. , 15 6 S.W. 3d a t 87 9. “ An ow ne r may be awa re of the da

ng e r, bu t e xer c ise no c on tr ol, or he ma y exercise c ontrol and have no actua l knowledg e of the dang er; in either instance, the owner is statutorily

shielded fr om liabilit y .” Ellwood T exas ForgeCorp. , 214 S.W .3d at 700. Case law define s “contr ol” in a ver y prec ise manner
. Id
. To be li able under C hapter 95, the
owner must have the right to control the mea ns, methods, or details of the inde pendent c ontrac tor’s
w o r k t o t h e e x t e n tt h a tt h e i n d e p e n d e n tc o n t r a c t o r i s n o te n t i r e l y f

r e e t o d o t h e w o r

k h i s o w n w a y.04
- 08
- 00 03 6- CV

- 5- Id
. The right to control t he work must extend to the oper ative deta il of the contra ctor’s w ork. Id
. I t is no t e no ug h th a t the ow ne r ha s the ri g ht to or de r the wo rk to sto p an d s tart or to i ns pe c t pr og re ss
o r receive repor

ts. Id
. N o r

is it e n o u g h to r e c o mm e n d

a s a f e ma n n e r f o r th e in d e p e ndent contra ctor’s e mploy ees to pe rfor m the work. Id .; see also Chi Energy, I nc. , 156 S.W .3d at 880. Pat Aube, B P’s on-site consultant, testified that he did not instruct Conductor, I nc. re g arding how to drill the conduct o r h o l e o r how to unload the pipe . Aube state d he did not instruct Conductor, I nc. on how to unload, move, or install the pipe, how to unload or set up the aug er use d fo r d ri lli ng , or ho w to dr ill the ho le
. Matth e w Cr oo k, the su pe rv iso r fo r Con du c tor , I nc . a t th e we ll sit e , a lso state d th a t BP di d no t gi ve Con du c tor , Inc . a ny ins tr uc tio ns on

ho w t o o pe rate its equipment, did not c ontrol the manner in w hich it c onducted its wor k, and did not c ontrol the way the hole wa s drilled or how th e p i pe wa s unloaded or move d. Caleb Crook, anothe r employ ee of Con du c tor , Inc . wh o wa s a t the we ll sit e , a lso te sti fi e d th a t B P di d n ot t e ll Co nd uc tor , Inc . h owto do any aspec t of its job. The Mor enos re ly on evidenc e that Aube told Matthew Crook to wait for
a cr ane to move the conductor pipe ins t ea d o f a bobcat. As pr eviously noted, howeve r, it is not enoug h to rec ommend a saf e manne r for

the independe nt co n t rac tor’s employ ees to pe rfor m the work. Ellwood T

exas ForgeCorp. , 2 14 S.W. 3d a t 70 0; Chi Energy, Inc

. , 156 S.W .3d at 880. Even if Aube ha d order ed the work to stop until the cra ne arr ived, B P would not have exercised suf ficient control to be liable under Chapter 95. See T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 95.003 (Ve rnon 20 05 ) ( pr ov idi ngthat th e ri g ht t o or de r the wo rk to sta rt or sto p is no t su ff

ic ie nt c on tr ol) . B e c a

us e
we ho ld the e vid e nc e c on c lus ive ly e sta bli sh e d tha t BP did no t exer c ise c on tr ol o ve r t he mann e r i n wh i ch C o n d

u ct o r, I n c. p er fo rm edi t s wo rk , we n ee d n o tad dre s s wh et h er BP h ad ac tu al kn o wl ed ge04
- 08
- 00 03 6- CV

- 6- of the da ng er be cause both conditions of section 95.003 must be met befor e liability will be imposed upon the prope rty

owner . See Chi Energy

, Inc. , 156 S.W .3d at 880. C ONCL US I ON The trial c ourt’s judg ment is affirme d. Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice