C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS DU STY RA Y PA I

NT ER, I NDI VI DUAL L Y AND A S NEXT FRI END OF DEZ ARAY NI COL E SPEER AN D SU MME R D AWN PAI NT ER, MI NO RS, A ND TI NAPERKI

NS, I NDI VI DUAL L Y AND A S REPR ESENTATI VE OF THE ESTATE OF JESS E PERKI

NS, DECEASED, Ap pe lla nts , v. MOMENTUM ENE RGY CO RPO RA TI ON , M c GU I RE I ND UST RI ES, I

NC ., AN D X AC T TECHNOL OGI ES, I

NC. , Ap pe lle e s. § § § § § § § § § No. 08-07-00112- CV

Appea l from the 112th District Court of Upton County , Texas (TC# 05-01-U 3880-I DO) (consolidated w/05-04-U3880- I DO)

O P I N I O N Ap pe lla nts , D us ty Ray

Pa int e r, I nd ivi du a lly

and a s n e xt fr ie nd

of min or s D e zar ay

Ni c ole Spe e r a nd Sum me r Da

wn Pa int e r an d Tin a Pe rk ins , indi vid ua lly and a s r e pr e se ntativ e of

the Es ta te of Jesse Perkins, dece ased, a ppeal the tr ial court’s g rant of summar y jud gm en t in favor of Momentum E n e r gy

Co r p o r a ti o n , McGuire I ndustries, I nc. (“ McGuire ”), a nd Xac t Technolog ies, I nc. We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

.

I. BACKG ROUND On Aug ust 7, 2004, J esse Perkins and Dusty Painter we re e mploy ees of Robinson Drilli ng of Texas, L td. (“Robinson”), when P erkins was killed and P ainter paraly zed after having been struc k by a ro ta tin g he a d tha t fe ll fr om the top of a blo wo ut pr e ve nte r d ur ingdis a sse mbl y

of a dr ill ingri g at the L in d s e y N o . 1 w e ll s it e in U p to n Co u n ty

. Ro b in s o n h a d b e e n h ir e d b y M o me n tum, theoperator, to drill a well, pursuant to a n I ADC Drilling Bid Proposal and Footag e Drilling Contra ct (the “ Drilling Contra ct”)

. Momentum, the 100 perc ent owner of t he leasehold working interest of the re levant minera l proper ty , hired Xac t to provide a c ontrac t repre sentative to over see c erta in aspec ts of the oper ation, inc lud ingthe ru

nn ingof c a sin g s, c e me nti ng the c a sin g s, se tti ng the sli ps , ele c tr ic log g ing , a nd dr ill

stem testing. Xa ct hired Me lvi n Fe sler to serve as the c ontrac t repre sentative for itself and Mo me ntum. On t he date of t he accident, the well had re ache d total depth and Robinson employ ees w ere in t he pr oc e ss o f r ig g ingdo wn the dr ill ingri g . A s p art

of the pr oc e ss, Rob ins on e mpl oy e e s h a d to

remove the ca sing f

rom the blowout preve nter stack and lay the blowout pr evente r on the g round. The blowout pre venter

is a larg e, hea

vy piece of equipment. The rotating head, a separ ate piece of equipment that weig hs approximately 2,000 pounds, was bolted to the top of the blowout preve nter. The blowout preventer was owned by Robinson, while t he rotating head wa s rented f rom McGuire

. Pa int e r a nd Pe rk ins wo rk e d o n th e da y lig ht t our, wh ic h r an f

ro m 6 a .m. un til 2 p .m. Rob ins on emp lo y ees on th e pr e vio us sh if t ha d r e mov e d o r l oo se ne d s ome of the bo lts

secur ing the rotating head to the top of the blowout preve nter in a nticipation of hoisting it off of the blowout preve nter, be fore l ay ing the preve nter on the g round. At the time of the a ccide nt, there

rema ined two bol ts securingthe rotating head to the pr evente r, and the nuts attache d to the bolts were only hand-tig htened. The fac t that some of the bolts ha d been r emoved a nd others loosene d was not communicated to the me mbers of the daylight tour. The da y light tour e mploy ees so u gh t t o remove the blowout preve nter fr om the rig by removing it with the rotating he ad still attached. The daylight cre w attac hed the dr aw wor ks towards the to p o f th e b lo w o u t p r e v e n te r in o r d e r to li f t it , an d a tt a c h e d an a ir h o is t to th e bottom of theP e rk ins se ttl e d he r c la im s a g a ins t X a c t an d M c G u ire p rio r to this a p p e a l. 1 T he releva nt p o rti o ns o f ch ap t er 9 5 , up o n w hich M o m en t um an d X ac t rely , p ro vid e a s f o l l o w s: 2 In t hi s chap t er:

( 1) “ Cl a i m” me a n s a c l a i m f or da ma g e s c a u s e d by n e g l i g e n c e , i n c l udi ng a c ou n t e r c l a i m, c r os s - c l a i m, or t h i r d p a r t y c l a i m.

(2) “ C l ai m ant ” m eans a part y m aki ng a cl ai m s ub ject t o t hi s chap t er. ( 3) “ Prope r t y ow n er ” mea n s a pe r s on or e n t i t y that ow n s r ea l pr oper t y pr i mar i l y u s ed f or co m m erc i al o r b usiness p urp o ses. T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C O D E A NN . § 95. 001. T h i s c h a pt e r a pp l i e s on l y t o a c l a i m:

( 1) a g ai n s t a pr oper t y ow n er , c on t r ac t or , or s ub co nt ra ct or f or pe r s on al i n

j u r y , de at h , or pr oper t y da mag e t o a n ow n er , a c on t r ac t or , or a s u bcon t r ac t or or a n e mpl oy ee of a c ont rac t or or subco nt ract o r; and (2) t hat ari ses f

rom t he co nd i t i o n or use of an i m p rovem ent t o re a l p ro p ert y where t he c o n tra c to r o r su b c o n tra c to r c o n stru c ts, re p a irs, re n o v a te s, o r m o d ifi e s the im p ro v e m e n t. T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C O D E A NN . § 95. 002.

A pro p ert y o w n e r i s no t l i ab l e f o r personal i njury , de at h, or p rop ert y da m age t o a co nt ract o r, s u bcon t r ac t or , or a n e mpl oy ee of a c on t r ac t or or s u bcon t r ac t or w h o c on s t r u ct s , r epa i r s , r en ov at es , or m o d i f i es an i m p rovem ent t o real pro p ert y , i ncl ud i ng pe rs o nal i njury , de at h, or pr op ert y da m age ari si ng f ro m t he f

ail ure t o p ro vid e a safe wo rkp l ac e u nless: (1) t he p rop ert y o wner e xerci ses o r ret ai ns som e co nt rol o ver t he m anner i n whi ch t he wo rk i s p erf o rme d , other t han t he ri ght t o ord er t he wo rk t o s t art or st o p or t o i nspect p rogress or recei ve repo rt s; and

(2) t he p rop ert y ow ner had actual know le d g e o f t he d anger or co nd i t i o n res ul t i ng i n t he p ers o nal i njury , de at h, or p rop ert y da m age and f ai l ed t o ad eq uat el y warn. T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C O D E A NN . § 95. 003. blowout p re v en ter to pull the lower por tion of preve nter out and tilt it. The cre w then lifted the blowout pr evente r, pulled the bottom aside , and beg an to la y it ove r. When they

did so, the rotating head f ell from the top of the preve nter, killing Per kins and sever ely

injuring Painter

. P a i n t e r an d P e r k i n s b r o u g h ts u i ta g a i n s tM o m e n tu m an d X a c t , b a s e d o np r e m i s e s l i a b i l i t y, 1 and ag ainst McGuire , based on strict liability , neg lige nce, a nd brea ch of w arr anty . Momentum and Xac t both filed tr ad i t i o n al and no-evidenc e motions for summary judgme nt. They

argued that chapte r 95 of t he Tex as C ivil Practice s and Remedies Code a pplied to the claims ag ainst them and 2 that they wer e entitled to summary judgme nt, beca use there was no e vidence that either e x erc isedW h e re the trial co u rt g ra n ts a su m m a ry j u d g m e n t with o u t statin g it s g ro u n d s fo r d o ing so , w e w ill a ff irm , i f 3 a n y o f t h e the o rie s a d v a n c e d b e lo w is m e rito rio u s. See H ar wel l v. St at e Far m M ut

. Aut o. I ns . Co. , 896 S. W

. 2d 170, 173 (T ex. 19 9 5 ). control over

Robinson and its employ ees a nd no evidenc e that ei ther ha d actua l knowledg e of the da ng e r. Mo me ntum and

Xa c t a lso fi le d fo r su mma ry jud g me nt o n c omm on

law n e g lig e nc e c la ims , in the event that ch apter

95 was de emed inapplica ble. McGuire moved for tr aditional and noe vid e nc e su mma

ry jud g me nts on a ll of the c la ims a g a ins t it. Af te r a he ari ngon

the va ri ou s mo tio ns , the trial cour

t gr anted summary j u d gm en t i n favor of Momentum, Xac t, and McGuire . The trial

c ourt did no t sp e c if

y the g ro un ds fo r i ts j ud g me nt. 3

II. DI SCU SSIO N A. Standard of

Review The standa

rd of r eview f

or a tra ditional summ ary

judgme nt asks whether the movant car ried the burde n of showing th at t h er e i s no g enuine issue of materia l fac t, so that judgment should be g rante d as a matter of law

. Di v e rsi c ar e Ge n. Pa rtn e r, In c . v . R ub io , 1 8 5 S. W. 3 d 8 4 2 , 8 4 6 ( T e x. 20 05 ); De Santiago v. W

est Tex. Cmty. Supe rvision & Corr. Dep’t , 203 S.W .3d 387, 398 (Tex. App. --El Paso 2006, no pet.) . Summary j udg ment is proper if the defe ndant disproves at least one el ement of eac h of the plaintiff’ s cause s of ac tion, D. Houston, Inc. v . Love , 9 2 S. W. 3 d 4 5 0 , 454 (Tex. 2002), or esta

blishes all elements of a

n aff irmative def

ense to e ach c laim, S

h a h v . Mo ss , 67 S.W .3d 836, 842 (Tex. 2001). Once the movant establishes a rig ht to judgment as a matter of la

w, the burd e n s hif

ts t o th e non-m ov ant to prod uc e e vid e nc e ra isi nga

g e nu ine iss ue of

ma te ri a l f

a c t. City of Houston v. Clear Creek

Basin Auth. , 589 S.W .2d 671, 678-79 (Te x . 1979). When revie wing a summary judgme nt, we take as true all competent evidenc e fa vorable to the non-movant, and w e indulge ever

y rea sonable infe renc e and r esolve a ny doubts in the non-movant’s f avor. So uth weste rn Elec. Powe r Co. v. Grant , 7 3 S

. W

. 3 d 2 1 1 , 2 1 5 (T ex . 2 0 0 2 ) ( ci t i n g Scienc e Spe ctrum, Inc . v.Martinez , 941 S.W .2d 910, 911 (Tex. 1997)).

The Texas Rules of Civil Procedur e also permit a party to move for a

no-evide nce summar

y jud g me nt “ wi tho ut p re se nti ng su mma ry jud g me nt ev ide nc e ,” bu t th e y re qu ir e the mov ingpa

rt y to “state the elements a s to w hich there is no evidenc e.” T EX . R. C IV . P. 1 66 a (i ); Aguilar v. Morales , 162 S.W .3d 825, 834 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2005, pet. de n i ed ). T h e burde n then shifts to the nonmovant to produce summary judgme nt evidenc e raising a g enuine issue of m ater ial fac t reg arding

eac h element c halleng ed in the motion. Aguilar , 162 S.W .3d at 834. A no-e vidence motion for summary judgme nt is e ssentially a pre trial direc ted ver dict, and

we apply the same leg al sufficie ncy standard of re view. King Ranch, Inc. v . Chapman , 118 S.W .3d 7 4 2 , 7 5 0 -5 1 (Tex. 2003), cert. de nied , 5 4 1 U

. S. 1 0 3 0 ( 2 0 0 4 )

. We v ie w th e e v id e n c e in th e li g ht most favora

ble to the non-movant, a

nd we must disreg ard a ll c ontrary evidenc e and infe renc es. Id.

a t 75 1. A g e nu ine iss ue of ma te ri a l fa c t is ra ise d if the no n- mov ant pr od uc e s mo re tha

n a sc int ill a of evide nce r eg ardingthe cha lleng ed ele ment. Id. T h er e i s not a scintilla of evidenc e whe n the evidenc e is so wea

k as to do no more than c reate a mer e surmise or suspicion of materia l fac t. Ianni v. Loram Maint. of W

ay, Inc

. , 16 S.W .3d 508, 513 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2000, pet. de nied). Evidenc e t h at fa ils to constit ute more tha n a mer e scintilla is, in lega l effe ct, no evidenc e at a ll. Lo zano v. Lozano , 52 S.W .3d 141, 148 (Tex. 2001). B. M om e nt um ’s Tr adi ti ona l an d No -E vid e nc e M ot ion s forSum m ar y J udgm e nt I n its no-evidence motion for summary judgme nt, Mome ntum a rg ued that chapte r 95 of the Civil Practice and Remedie s Code applies to the neg lige nce c laims ag ainst it and that there w as no evide n c e th a t M o me n tum e xe r c is e d o r r e ta in e d c o n tr o l o v e r

th e ma n n e r in w h ic h Ro binsonM om ent um broug ht s epar at e mo t i ons aga i ns t P ai nt er and P er ki ns , eac h of whi ch i ncl uded bo t h n o- evi dence 4 and t radit i o nal s um m ary judgm ent ground s. T he m o t i o ns are s ub st ant i al l y s i m i l ar. (including Perkins and Painter) perf ormed their w ork. Momentum also argue d t hat there was no 4 evidenc e that it had ac tual knowledg e of the dang er or condition resulting in Per kins’ death a

nd Painter’s injury . Momentum arg ued that , ev en i f cha pter 95 we re ina

pplicable, ther e wa s no evidenc e under a common-law neg lige nce claim that Momentum ow ed a duty to Perkins and Painter,

and no e vid e nc e of

any br e a c h o f d

uty by Mo me ntum th a t pr oximate ly c a us e d th e ir inj ur ie s. Momentum asserted the same g rounds with reg ard to c hapter 95 in its traditional motion for

su mma ry jud g me nt. Withre g ard

to the ne g lig e nc e c la ims a g a ins t it, Mo me ntum argue d th a t it did

no t ow e a du ty to Per kin s and Pa int e r, be c a

us e it d id n ot e xer c ise c on tr ol, or have c on tr a c tua l c on tr ol,

ov e r R ob ins on

and its e mpl oy e e s. As e vid e nc e in s up po rt

of its tr a dit ion a l motio n, Mo me ntum atta c he d the a ff ida vit of Me lvi n Fe sler. In his affidavit, Fes l er s t ated that he was re tained as a n independe nt contrac tor by Xac t Tec hnologie s to serve as a contra ct repr esentative for Momentum on the L indsey No. 1 Well for the

so le purp os e s o f o ve rs e e ingthe ru nn ingof the c a sin gs , c e me nti ngthe c a sin g s, se tti ngthe sli ps , elec tric log g ing, a

nd drill-stem testing. F esler stated that, at the time of th e ac ci d ent, Robinson’s employ ees w ere in the proce ss of laying dow n R o b i n s o n ’s blowout preve nter a nd that he wa s not reta ined to overse e or supe rvise this proce ss. Fesle r fur ther stated that he did n o t, at any time, exercise or

reta in control over the manner in which the wo rk was performe d by Robinson’s employ ees in lay

ing dow n th e b l o wo u t preve nter, including the re moval of the bolts or studs that

secur ed the r o t ating head. F esler a lso stated that, prior to the ac cident, he w as unaw are of the method that Robinson used to remove the r otating he ad and that he had no a ctual knowledg e of the dang er or condition that resulted in Perkins’ de ath or Painter’ s injury . Fe sler further stated that hewas una

war e that anyone had r emoved or loosened the bolts or studs that secur ed the rotating he ad, that he did not l o o k at o r i n s p ect the studs or bolts that sec ured the rotating head, a nd that he wa s

un awa re that Per

kin s and Pa int e r w e re sta

nd ingbe ne a th t

he blo wo ut p re ve nte r p ri or to t he a c c ide nt. Momentum a lso attached the aff idavit of L ouie Michae l Cure, Xac t Technolog ies’ drilling superintende nt at the re levant time per iod. Cure confirme d that Xac t w as reta ined by Momentum t o p rovi de it with a contra ct re prese ntative for the sole purposes of overse eing the running of the casing s, ceme nting the c asing s, setting the slips, elec tric l og g ing, and dril l-stem testing. Cure stated that Fe sle r was not re tained to over see or supervise Robinson’s employ ees dur ing a ny work prepa ratory to lay ing dow n the blowout preve nter. Cure further stated that Xac t did not exercise or reta in control over the manner in which Robinson perfor med its work, including the m anner in which Robinson did prepa

ratory work to la

y down the blowout preve nter, includingthe re moval of studs or bolts from the rotating he ad. Ac co rd i n g t o C u re , prior to the ac cident, Xa ct had no a ctual knowledg e of the dang er or condition that resulted in Perkins’ de ath and Painter ’s injury and wa s not

awa re that any one had r emoved or loosened the bolts or studs that secur ed the r otating he ad. Cure fu rt he r s ta te d th a t X a c t w a s n ot a wa re of the me tho d b y

wh ic h Ro bin so n’ s e mpl oy e e s in te nd e d to

remove the rotating head and was not a war e that Perkins and Painter w ere standing beneath the head. Momentum also attache d the af fidavit of Sammie L y

n n Ho d ges, Mom entum’s oper ations fore man during the re levant time per iod. Hodg es st ated that Momentum owned r ecor d title to 100 pe r c e n t o f th e le a s e h o ld w o r k in g in te r e s t in th e s u

b je c t mi n e r a l e s tate an d th a t, p r io r to and at the tim e of , th e a c c ide nt, Mo me ntum w a s u sin g the pr op e rt y fo r c omm e rc ia l and

bu sin e ss p ur

po se s. Hodg es stated that Momentum retained Xact t o provide a contra ct represe ntative at the well for the

so le purp os e s o f o ve rs e e ingthe ru nn ingof the c a sin g s, c e me nti ngthe c a sin g s, se tti ngthe sli ps , elec tric log g ing, a

nd drill-stem testing. F esler w as Momentum’s only contra ct re prese n t at i ve andits only

repr esentative prese nt at the well. Ho d ges further stated that, at no time, did Fe sler communicate w ith Momentum as to the prepa rations to lay

down the blowout pre venter , the method by which Robinson intended to remove the rotating head, or the remova l a nd loosening of studs and bolts from the head. Hodg es also stated t hat M omentum did not exercise or retain c ontrol over the

manner in which work w as per form ed b y R o b i n s on’s employ ees, nor did it retain Xac t to do so. Ho dg e s st a te d th a t Mo me ntum di d no t have a c tua l kn ow le dg e of the me tho d us e d by Rob ins on to

remove the rotating head, of the re moval and loosening of studs and bolts from the hea d, or whe re Perkins and Painter w ere standing at the time of the a ccide nt. T h e Dril ling Contrac t betwee n Mo me ntum and

Rob ins on

wa s atta c he d a s a

n e xhibi t to the a ff

ida vit

. I n their re sponses to Momentum’s motions , Perkins and Painter a rgued that, beca

use the Dr ill ingCon tr a c t pr ov ide d that “ [o]pe rator sh a ll be so le ly re sp on sib le and a ssume s lia bil ity fo r a ll conseque nces of

operations by

both parties while on a day work basis,” chapte r 95 was inapplicable. Perkins and Painter also argued that the Drill ing Contract provided that day work labor

provided by Robinson would be under the dire ction, supervision, and c ontrol of Mom entum. I n addition, they argued that Fesler w as Momentum’s company repr esentative, that he exerc ised ac tual control over the manner

and mea ns of the oper ation, th at h e h ad actual knowledg e of the dang er, a nd that he failed to a dequate ly

war n of the da

ng er. Among other thing s, Perkins and Painter attac hed the Dr illing Contract, billing r ecor ds from Xac t to Momentum for Fe sl er ’s work, a nd excerpts from the de position of Martin Spadinge r, Mome n tum’ s p r e s id e n t. Sp a d in g e r te s ti f ie d th a t M o me n tum h ir e d

X a c t t o b e it s c o mp a ny

re pr e se ntativ e a t th e we ll f or t h e d a i l y d ri lli ngop e ratio ns a

nd that su c h r e pr e se ntativ e wa s g e ne ri c a lly kn ow n in the ind us tr y a s a “ c omp any

man. ” Pe rk ins and Pa int e r a lso a tta c he d d e po sit ion e xce rp ts of Robert Robinson, the preside nt of GR Robinson Manag ement, L .C., the manag ing g ener al par tnerof Robinson Drilling o f T ex as, L td., who testified that the compa ny man, if he w as with the toolpusher, had the “ ultimate say -so” about the operation as t he well was being finished, that he ha d the po we r a

nd re sp on sib ili ty

to t a lk t o Rob ins on ’s too lpu sh e r a bo ut w hat he wa

nte d d on e on

the ri g

a t th e tim e of

the c omp le tio n pro c e dure s, and tha t he ha d the ri g ht an d th e re sp on sib ili ty to d ic ta te the mann e r a

nd me ans of the c omp le tio n p ro c e dure s. Appellants also attac hed deposition excerpts fr om Fe sler’s deposition. Fe sler testi fied that a compa ny man is prese nt to see that eve ry thing is done a ccor ding to standa rds for r unning c asing

and , w hil e the c re w i s o n d ay -w or k, to s e e that eve ry

thi ng is don e a c c or din g to “ sp e c s. ” F e sle r a lso testified that t h e co m p an y man is “the one that went out there and made sure that the c asing was rig ht, ever

y thing wen t ri g ht, ever

y thing wa s in place, a

nd ever y thing wa s run at the r ight plac e

. . . .” Fe sler testi fied that, whe n the cr ew star ted pulling the c asing out, he told a couple of hands who wer e standing close to the cellar to “ come over the re out of the way” bec ause “ y ou don’t stand under that V-door whe n they ’re laying pipe down.” F esler then walked to the t oolpusher’s truc k at the edg e of the site and aske d the toolpusher whe ther he had re lease d the rotating head. 1. Appli cability of

Chapter 95 I n their first issue, Appe llants a rg ue that chapte r 95 of the Civil Practice and Remedie s Code do e s n ot a pp ly to M ome ntum or

Xa c t, b e c a

us e c la ims ari sin g fr om a dr ill ing op e ra tio n ar e no t c la ims arising from the use and condition of an improveme nt to real prope rty . Section 95.002 of the Code provides th a t th e c h a

p te r a p p li e s o n ly to a c la im ( 1 ) a g a in s t a p r o p e rty o w n e r , c o n tr a c to r , or subcontrac tor for pe rsonal injury , death, or proper ty damag e to an o wn e r , c o ntr a c to r , o r s u b contra ctor (2) that a rises fr om the condition or use of an improvement t o rea l proper ty , wher e the c ontrac tor or subcontrac tor constructs, repa irs, renovates, or modifies the improve ment. T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 95.002. Section 95.001 define s a “pr operty owner ” as “ a per son or entity that ownsrea l proper ty primarily used for commerc ial or business purposes.” T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 95.001. By

virtue of its owner ship of the minera l interests rele vant t o t h e L i n d s ey No. 1 Well, Momentum is a

proper ty owner as def ined by section 95.001. See Chi Energy, Inc. v . Urias , 156 S.W .3d 873, 879 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2005, pet. d en i ed ) (cha pter 95 he ld applicable to the

ow ne r o f t he le a se ho ld i nte re st i n a

n oil we ll) ; Francis v. Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. , 130 S.W .3d 76, 84 (T e x. Ap p. -- Ho us ton

[1st Di st. ] 200 3, no pe t.) (o il an d g a s le sse e wh o u se d th e su bje c t pr op e rt

y fo r t he c omm e rc ia l and

bu sin e ss p ur

po se s of pr od

uc ing and mark e tin g oil and g a s h e ld a

pr op e rt y

owner under c hapter

95). Ap pe lla nts a rgue that th e ir ne g lig e nc e c la ims inv olv e the ro ta tin g he a d th a t w a s atta c he d to R o b i n s o n ’ s dr i l l i n g r i g an d t h a t n e i t h e r t h e h e a d n o r t h e r i g w a s an i mp r o v e m e n t t o r e a l p r o p e r t y. Howeve r, cha

pter 95 a pplies to a claim for personal inj ury “that arises from the condition or use of

an im pr ov e me nt t o re a l pr op e rt

y wh e re the c on tr a c tor or su bc on tr a c tor c on str

uc ts, re pa ir s, re no vate s,

or modifies the improvement.” T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 95 .0 02 (2 ). Court s h a ve he ld that c h a p te r 9 5 a

p p li e s , d e s p it e th e f

a c t th a t th e o b

je c t c a u s in g th e in

ju r y is n o t itself an improvement, whe re the injury arises f rom work be ing done on an improveme nt. Fisher v. Lee & Cha ng P’ sh ip , 16 S.W.3 d 198 , 200 -0 2 (T e x. Ap p. -- Ho us ton [1st Di st. ] 20 00 , pe t. d e nie d) ; Sp e ar s

v. Crown Central Petroleum Corp. , 133 Fe d. Appx. 129, 131 (5th Cir. 2005) (a ffirming summary judgme nt for defenda

nt in case wher e plainti ff was injured after tripping on hos es while on pre mises to p e rf or m ma int e na

nc e on a he a t e xch ang e r) ; Admire v. H.E. Butt G rocery Co. , No. 01-02-00060- CV, 2003 WL 203514, at *2 (Te x . App.--H ouston [1st Dist.] J anuar y 30, 2003, no pet.) (injurie s resulting from fa ll from ladder leadingto roof of building wher e contr actor was repairing

re fr ig e ratio n unit s aro se fr om u se of an imp ro ve me nt to t

he pr op e rt

y un de r s e c tio n 9 5. 00 3) ; Moreno v. BP Am . Prod. Co. , N o. 04 -0 8- 00 03 6- CV , 2 00 8 WL 41 72 24 8, a t *2 (T e x. Ap p. -- San A nto nio Se pt.Sect i on 162

. 00 3 cr eat es a t r us t f un d of m oni es p ai d t o cont r act ors f or w ork per f

ormed by ce r t ai n ben ef

i ci ar i es 5 w h o furn ish lab o r o r m a te ria l fo r t h e c o n stru c tio n o r re p a ir o f a n im p ro v e m e n t o n re a l p ro p e rty. T EX . P R OP . C O D E A NN . § 162. 003. 10 , 20 08 , no pe t. h. ) (c ha pte r 95 a pp lie d to inj ur ie s su ff

e re d by c on tr a c tor ’s e mpl oy ee wh ile unloading pipe at we ll sit e). Appellants also ar g ue that the dr illing work pe rfor med by Robinson did not const itute the construction of an improvement to r eal proper ty under section 95.002(2). Appe llants rely on Holley v. N L Indus./NL AcmeTool Co. , 718 S.W .2d 813, 814-15 (Tex. A pp.--Austin 1986, writ ref ’d n.r.e .). I n that case , the Austin Court of Appea ls stated th at “[t] he drilling of an oil we ll does not involve

co n s t ru ct i o n , i nt h e s e n s e o f a s s em b l i n g m at er i al s t o m ak e ap er m an en twh o l e. T h e d ri l l i n g ri g, itself, is not a perma

nent fix ture, but r ather is r emoved from the well-site afte r drilling is completed.” Id

. a t 8 1 5

. T h e is s ue in Holley was wheth e r a c on tr a c t f

or the dr ill ingof

an o il w e ll w a s a constr uc tio n c on tr a c t, a s de fi ne d by se c tio n 16 2. 00 1( a ) of the Te xas Pr op e rt y Cod e , su c h that a contra ct o r t h at furnished materials for the drilling ope ration would be e ntitled to construction

c on tr a c t tr

us t f un ds

. Id . at 813-14. The Holley c ourt c on c lud e d tha t the dr ill ingof an o il w e ll d id 5 not c o n s ti tute an im

p r o v e me n t, b e c a

u s e th e dr il li n g r ig it s e lf w a s n o t a p e r ma n e n t f ix ture a nd beca use “[d]rill ing a

hole in the g round does not in v o lve the asse mbly of var ious materials into a perma nent structure .” Id . at 815. The co u rt n o t ed fur ther that c asing pipe involved per manent construction, but the court rea soned that it wa s place d in the hole simply to pr eser v e t h e h o l e and p re v en ti tfr o m co l l ap s i n g. Appellee s point to Fran c is , wher e the e mploy ee of an indepe nd en t co n t ractor broug ht an action ag ainst the opera

tor of an oil well for injuries sustained during an explos ion. The e mploy ee, relying on Holley , argued that cha pter 95 did not apply to his neg lige nce claim, beca use, as a matter of l aw, an oil well i s not an im proveme nt to rea l proper ty

. 130 S.W .3d at 84-85. The Fran c is courtn o t e d

t ha t “ Holley fo cu s es s o l el y

o nwh et h er

‘c o n s t ru ct i o n , ’ s p ec i fi ca l l y t h e a ct i v i t y

o f d ri l l i n g, constitutes an improvement unde r the c onstruction-pay ments provisions of the Property Code.” Id. at 85. The c ourt also distinguished Holley on the g ro un d th a t it

de a lt w ith

dr ill ing , “ in c on tr a st t o the well that re mains after the drilling.” Id. Momentum also relies on Credeur v. MJ Oil Inc. , 123 Fe d. Appx. 585, 2004 W L2914039 (5th Cir. Dec . 15, 2004) (not desig nated f or publication). In Credeur , an employ ee of a contr actor hired to per form var ious service s in s u p p o rt o f drilling a n oil well, including mud filtration, wa s injured when he partially fell throug h a hatc h acc essing the mud tank. Id. at 587, 2004 WL 2914039, at *1. The district c ourt g rante d summary judgme nt in favor of

the oper ator, on the g rounds that chapte r 95 provided the em p l oy ee’ s exclusive remedy and that he did not esta

blish li ability

under the statute. Id. On ap p ea l , t h e em p l o y ee ar gu ed t h at ch ap t er 9 5 d i d n o t ap p l y t o h i s wo rko nt h e r i g, beca use it was not construction, repair, r enovation, or modification of an improvement. Id. at 588, 2004 WL 2914039, *2. The F ifth Circuit disagr eed, a nd, rely ing on Fran c is , c on c lud e d that a c tiv ity fac ilitating a we ll’s perfor mance was c onstruction, renovation, or modification. Id. “The re c an be no improve ment without annexation to realty , and until personalty is annexed to rea lty , it by definition cannot be an improveme nt.” Sonnier v. Chisholm-Ryder Co. , 909 S.W .2d 475, 479 (Tex. 1995). Whether personalty has become affix ed to rea lty , such t hat i t constitutes an improvement, depends upon: (1) the mode a nd sufficie ncy

of anne x ation; (2) the a daptation of the persona lty

to the use or pur

pose of r ealty ; and (3) the intention of the owner

. Id. The third fa ctor is preeminent, a

nd the first two fa ctors ar e conside red e vidence of intent. I d. “The class of improvements is considere d to be broa der tha n that of fixtures, which ar e items of persona lty that have be come pe rmane nt parts of the r ealty to which they are aff

ix ed.” Reame

s v. Hawthorne-Se ving, Inc. , 94 9 S.W. 2d 75 8, 76 1 ( Te x. Ap p. -- Da lla s 1 99 7, pe t. d e nie d) (h old ingthat c on ve y or be lt w ithwhee ls was construc tively annexed to proper

ty). Th e re is n o e vid e nc e in t

his c a se that sp e a ks to M ome ntum’ s int e nt wi th re g ard to t he we ll. I n its reply

brief a nd at ora l argument, Appellants ar g ued t h at dril ling a well was not a

n i m p roveme nt, beca

use there was no a

nnexation of personalty

to rea lty . Appellants submitted summary judgme nt evidence in the form of Xa ct ’s i n v oices to Momentum. The invoice s show ch ar ges fo r cementing the ca sing into the we ll, and it is undi sputed that this occurr ed. The re w as t h u s ana t t a c h m e n to f

p e r s o n a l t y t o r e a l t y. Ap pe lla nts d o no t dis pu te that a

c omp le te d w e ll i s an im

pr ov e me nt. I ns te a d, the y se e k to dis tin g uis h th e a c t of

dr ill inga

we ll f ro m th e con stru c tio n o f a we ll s tr uc tur e , o nc e dr ill ingis complete. What Appellants have not explained, howeve r, i s how a we ll may be construc ted without drilling. I t is ax iomatic that the drilling a nd the installation of casingis an int egr al p art of the construction of a well and that, without drilling, there can be no well. Drilling a nd the completion of drilling ope rations ar e m o re p roperly char acte rized as an e ssential part of the construction of a well, as opposed to some pr eliminary , unrelated task . We conclude that, in the context of section 95.002, Appellants we re involved in the c o n s t ruction of an improvement to rea l property

. See Moreno , 2008 WL 4172248, at *2 (cha pter 95 a pplied to injuries suffer ed by contra ctor’s e mploy ee, wher e contr actor

was hire d to drill and set conductor pipe at a w ell site). 2. Act ual Know ledge of the Danger or C ondi tion I n order for liability t o b e imposed, sec tion 95.003 requires that a plaintiff show that the proper ty owner “exerc ises or reta ins some control over the manner in which the wor

k is perfor

med, other than the rig ht to order the work t o start or stop or t o inspect prog ress or r ece ive re ports.” T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 95 .0 03 (1 ). I n a dd iti on , a pla int if f m us t sh ow t hat “the pr op e rt y

owner had ac tual knowledg e of the dang er or condition resulting in the pe rsonal injury , death, orproper

ty damag e and f

ailed to ade quately

war n.” Id. § 9 5. 00 3( 2) ; see also Ellwood Tex. Forge Corp. v. Jone s , 214 S.W .3d 693, 700 (Tex. App.--Ho u s ton [ 14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (cha pter 95 require s that a plaintiff show both contr ol a nd actua l know ledg e of the da ng er in orde r to preva il). Wit h reg ard to a ctual knowledg e of the dang er or condition, Appellants first ar g ue that

ne ith e r X a c t no r M ome ntum pr ov ide d F e sle r w itha sa fe ty manu a l or tr a ini ng fo r his se rv ic e s a s a company man at the we l l s i te. Even if w e assume that this i s releva nt to Momentum’s actual kn ow le dg e , w e no te tha

t th e de po sit ion te sti mony re fe re nc e d sho ws me re ly that X a c t di d n ot t

ra in people to be c ompany men, because it hired pe rsons with sever al y ear s of experienc e in the fie ld after conductinginterviews to dete rmine this. Xact di d , h o we v er, r equire safe ty training once e very

mon th o r tw o, wh ic h F e sle r a pp are ntl y a tte nd e d. Ap pe lla nts a lso argue that, pr ior to t he a c c ide nt, F e sle r d ir e c te d Ro bin so n c re w m e mbe rs to m ov e awa y fr om a c e rt a in a re a a t th e we ll s ite , b e c a

us e

o f t h e d an ger

o f ge t t i n g h i tb y

s o m et h i n g d

u ri n g d i s as s em b l y

o f t h e d ri l l i n g ri g. I n his summary

judgme nt response , Painter relied on various portions of F esler’ s deposition t es t i m o n y , i n cl u d i n g t h e f o l l o wi n g: They s ta rte d p u ll in g th e c a s in g o u t. A n d th e r e w a s a c o u p le o f h an d s th a t w as standing over c lose to the ce llar then. And I told them to come over there out of the way . And t hen I walked off to the company man’s pickup while t hey wer e lay ing the pipe down beca

use y ou don’t stand under that V-door when they ’re laying pipe down.

. . . Q: Where wa s the BO P at wheneve r they wer e lifting the ca sing a

nd y ou told-- A: I t w a s st ill hu

ngon the blo c ks

. Q: Okay . And t hen y ou told some--you told two of them to watc h out for the pipe? A: Yea h. Itold them to watch out for the pipe, because y ou g o to lay ing stuff down, y ou don’t stand under

there wher e something can hit y ou. Appellants ar g ue that F esler’ s testimony establishes his knowledg e of the dang er of beinghit by

something f

alling dur ing dismantling of the drilling rig . They contend that, a lthough F esler may not have had knowledg e of the dange rous conditi on of t he rotating he ad (be cause of its being

secur ed by

only two bolts), he had knowle dg e of the dang er of its falling f

rom above

. Appellants conce de that their summary judgme nt evidence fails to show that Fe sler had a ny knowledge t h at t h e rotating he ad wa s only secur ed by

two bolts. The evidenc e shows only that F e sler wa s awa re of the da ng e r o f b e inghit

by c a sin g or pip e wh e n it

is b e ingre mov e d a

nd la id down, not of the da

ng er of being hit by

the rotating head. Mor eov er, it i s undisputed that Fesle r walked a way from the we ll sit e at the time that the Robinson employ ees attempted to remove the blowout preve nter a

nd rotating head. T he dang er or condition that resulted in the ac cident wa s the fac t that the rotating head w as sec ured w ith only two hand-tig htened bolts

. Fe sler’s knowle dg e of the possibili ty of being hit by pipe or c asing as it is being la id down is not sufficient to satisfy the require ment that a prope rty owner have actua l know ledg e of the dang er or condition that cause d the i n j u r y. Pursuant to chapter

95, a prope rty

owner owes a duty to warn only

of known da

ng ers. Fisher , 16 S.W .3d at 202 (landow ner w ho did not have knowledg e of defe ctive ladder had no duty to warn) ; see also Rue da v. Paschal , 178 S.W .3d 107, 109-10 (Te x . App.--H ouston [ 1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (af firming summary

judgme nt in favor

of prope rty

owner wher e the plaintiff pr oduced no e vidence that proper

ty owner was a war e of a lleg ed def

ect in ladde r); Kelly v. LIN Television of T exas, L.P. , 27 S.W .3d 564, 572 (Tex. App.--Ea stland 2000, pet. denied) (neg lige nce in f ailing to inspect tower fo r str e ss f

ra c tur e s n ot e qu iva le nt t o a c tua l kn ow le dg e un de r c ha pte r 9 5) ; J

am es v . Co us ins Pr op s. Tex., L.P. , No. 03-06-00617- CV, 2008 WL 2220016 (Tex

. Ap p .--Austin May 30, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) ( requisite knowledg e pursua nt to chapter 95 was not knowledg e of the dang er in plac ing po rt a ble toi le t on

sid e wa lk, bu t r a the r k

no wl e dg e that toi le t ha d be e n pla c e d on sid e wa lk wi th w he e lsun loc ke d) ; Bishop v. Nabisco, Inc. , No

. 14-03-00639- CV, 2004 WL 832916, at *3 (Te x . App.--

Houston [14 t h Di s t

. ] Apr. 20, 2004, no pe t.) (knowledg e that objec t that cause d injury could be p o t en t i al l y

h ar m fu l i f w o rk i n g wi t h l ar ge e qu i p m en tn ea rb y wa s n o teq u i v al en t t o ac tu al kn o wl ed ge that object itself wa s dang erous)

. We overrule this iss ue. B eca use we have d et ermined that there w as no evide nce of actua l kn ow le dg e , w e do no t a dd re ss t he iss ue of

c on tr ol, a s it

re la te s to Mo me ntum. 3. Contrac tual Liab ility Th e tr ia l c ourt ’s su mma

ry jud g me nt p ro vid e d that App e lla nts take no thi ngby

the ir c la ims ag ainst Momentum, Xact, and Mc Guire. A ppellants argue t h at ch apter 95 does not apply

to the

c on tr a c tua l cla ims that the y a sse rt e d ag a ins t Mome ntum. Th e y fu rt he r ar g ue that, und e r t

he te rm s of the Dr ill ing Con tr a c t, Mom e ntum ass ume d lia bil ity fo r the a c c ide nt. I n th is r e g ard , App e lla nts rely on a provision containe d in the introductory para g raph of

the Dri l l i n g C ontrac t, a portion of which provid es , “[ e]x cept f or such oblig ations and liabilities specifica lly assumed by

Contractor, Op e rator sh a ll b e so le ly

re sp on sib le and

a ssume s li a

bil ity fo r a ll c on se qu e nc e s of op e ratio ns by bo th parties while on a

Day work B asis, including r esults and all other risks or liabilities incurre d in or inc ide nt t o s uc h o pe ratio ns .” I n a dd iti on , Ap pe lla nts re ly on se c tio n 1 9. 9( b) of the Dr ill ingCon tr a c t, which provide s that “Contrac tor wi l l prea ssemble, disassemble, or a ssemble mater ials to be furnished by

Oper ator only

when dire cted by

Oper ator a

nd when suc h work can be ac complished by

no rm a l r ig pe rs on ne l. A ll o f suc h s e rv ic e s sh a ll b e pe rf or me d o n a Da y wo rk B a sis , O pe rator

sh a ll rele ase Contractor from, and shall protec t, de fend a nd indemnify

Contractor f

rom and a g ainst any lia bil ity fo r s uc h s e rv ic e .” Ap pe lla nts argue that the y we re wo rk ing on a da y wo rk ba sis a t th e tim e of the injury

and that, as a

conseque nce, Momentum is contra ctually liable for the death a

nd injuries that r e su lte d f

ro m th e a c c ide nt.We need not re ach the issue of whether chapte r 95 applies to Appellants’ purpor ted contra ct

c la ims , f or the sim

ple re a so n th a t App e lla

nts did no t a sse rt

a c on tr a c t c la im a g a ins t Mo me ntum. Ap pe lla nts argue that th e y

ple a d a br e a c h o f c on tr a c t c la im. Th e pe tit ion s, wh ic h a re su bs tanti a lly sim ila r w ithre g ard

to P a int e r a

nd Pe rk ins , c on ta in o ne se c tio n d e ta iling the c la ims a g a ins t Momentu m , Xa ct , an d McGuire . The he ading for this section is entitled “Plaintiff’s Claims of Neg lige nce a

nd Products L iability

Claims.” The openings en t ence of this section in Painter’s pe tit ion re a ds , “ [t]his laws uit

is b ro ug ht b e c a

us e of the ho rr if ic inj ur ie s re c e ive d b y

Pla int if f D us ty Pa int e r b e c a

us e of the ne g lig e nc e of

De fe nd ants .” Simi larl y , th e op e nin g se nte nc e in P e rk ins ’ petition reads, “ [t ]hi s lawsuit is br oug ht be cause of the horrific injuries and dea th of J esse Per

kins beca use of the ne g lige nce of

Def endants . . . .” Both pe titions then proc eede d to alleg e fa cts relating to t he a c c ide nt, a sse rt ingtha

t Mo me ntum and Xa c t had a du ty to sup e rv ise the dr ill ing op e ratio n in one par ag raph, a

nd Perkins (but not P aint er) alleg ed that F esler ma intained ac tual control and dir e c tio n over th e dis mantl ingof the ri g in t

he ne xt para g ra

ph . In th e fo llo wi ngpa

ra g ra ph , b oth Pa int e r a nd Pe rk ins a lle g e that Mo me ntum and Xa c t “ we re fu

rt he r c on tr a c tua lly

lia ble fo r t he sa fe ty of th e dr il li n g o p e r a ti o n in qu e s ti o n a t th e ti me o f th e in ju r ie s a ll e g e d h e r e in

. D e f

e n d ants were exercising actua l control over the dril ling operation at the time of the acc ident in question.” I n her pray er, Tina Perkins, reque sted wrong ful death damag es, mental a ng uish damag es, and me dical and counseling expenses. I n his pray er, Painter soug ht damag es for medical bill s, lost wag es and e arning

c a pa c ity , p a in a

nd me nta l anguis h, los s o f c on so rt ium , a nd e xemp lary

dama g e s. Th e Rul e s o f Civ il Pr oc e dure re qu ir e that a pe tit ion se t f or th “ a sh or t st a te me nt o f t

he c a us e of action sufficie nt to g ive fair notice of the c laim involved.” T EX . R. C IV . P. 47(a). A f air re ading of Appe llants’ l i v e petiti ons does not reve al the plea ding of a contr act c laim. The statement that Momentum and Xac t were “contr actua lly liable for the safe ty of the drilling operation” was a lleg edamong various other alleg ations conce rning Momentum and Xac t’s duty to supervise a nd control the dr ill ingoperatio n. Th e fo llo wi ngse nte nc e a lle g e s th a t Mo me ntum and Xa c t ha d “ a c tua l c on tr ol” over the drilling ope ration. As pre viously noted, all of these alleg ations wer e pled under the hea ding that denoted ne g lige nce a nd product liability

claims. I n addition, neither Appe lla n t s o ug ht any dama g e s tha t wou ld ind ic a te a c on tr a c t c la im. Whil e thi s c e rt a inl y pr ov ide s n oti c e a s to Ap pe lla nts ’ alleg ations conce rning Momentum’s assertion of c ontrac tual and ac tual control over the oper ation fo r the purp os e s of a ne g lig e nc e c la im, the y do no t pr ov ide no tic e of a c on tr a ct c lai m agai ns t Momentum. Se e Ei k

on Kin g St. Ma nage r, L.L. C. v . LSF Kin g S t. M an ag e r, L.L. C. , 109 S.W .3d 762, 77 1 ( Te x. Ap p. -- Da lla s 200 3, pe t. de nie d) (p a ssi ng re fe re nc e to a co ve na nt o f g oo d f

a ithin s ing le sentenc e under

section of pleading labeled “ brea ch of c ontrac t,” was not suff icient to put opposing pa rt y on fa ir no tic e of c la im f or br e a c h o f t

he du ty of g oo d f a ithand fa ir de a lin g ). We o ve rr ule thi s issue. C. Xa c t’ s Tr adi ti ona l an d No Evi de nc e M ot ion for Sum m ar y J udgm e nt Xac t filed a mot ion for summary judgme nt, in which it asserted both tra ditional and noevidenc e g rounds. Xac t argued, int e r a lia , that there was no e vidence that it asserted c ontrol over Robinson suff

icient to a ssert liability over it on neg lige nce g rounds. As for its tra di t i o n al m otion for summary

judgme nt, Xact a

rg ued that it wa s an ag ent of Momentum and wa s thus entitled to the protec tions of chapter

95. As evidenc e, Xact attached the same a ffidavits of L ouie Michae l Cure and Melvin Fe sler that we re attached to Momentum’s motion for summary judgme nt, which ar e discussed above

. Xac t also at t ache d excerpts from the de position of Robert Robinson, t he pre sident of GR Ro b in s o n M an a g e me n t, L

. C. , th e ma n a g in g g e n e r a l p artn e r o f Ro b in s o n D r il li n g o f T e xa s , L td., which had c ontrac ted with Momentum to perform the drilling ope rations at the we ll. Mr. RobinsonT o ny P ai nt er i s t he f at her of A p p el l ant D ust y R ay P ai nt er. 6 te sti fi e d th a t Ro bin so n D ri lli ngha d n o c on tr a c t w ithXa c t. M r. Rob ins on a lso te sti fi e d tha t he did

no t e xpe c t any

of Xa c t’ s e mp loy e e s o r c on su lta nts , in c lud ingF e sle r, to t ra in o r s up e rv ise his

c omp any ’s e mpl oy e e s. Mr . Ro bin so n f ur the r t e sti fi e d th a t he did no t expe c t Xa c t to have any ro le in l ay ingthe blo wo ut p re ve nte r d ow n o n th e date of the a c c ide nt. Xac t attache d the deposition of Henr y Renbarg er, a

n empl o y ee of

Robinson. R enbar g er i n s t ru cted Tony

Painter, the driller, to lay down the blowout pre venter . Renbarg er te stified that 6 Tony Painter’s role with reg ard to lay ing dow n the blowout preve nter wa s to supervise the c rew . Appellant Painter a

rg ued in re sponse that, p u rs u an t t o the terms of the contra ct betwe en Momentum and Ro b i n s on, Momentum ex erte d control of da y work ope rations, and that Xa ct was lia ble by vir tue of havin g un de rt a ke n M ome ntum’ s o bli g a tio ns un de r t he c on tr a c t. P a int e r a lso

argue d th a t X a c t, t

hr ou g h F e sle r, e xer

te d a c tua l c on tr ol o ve r R ob ins on ’s dr ill ingop e ratio ns , including the laying dow n of the blowout pre venter . Finally , Painter ar g ued that Xa ct had a ctual kn ow le dg e of

the da ng e r a nd fa ile d to wa

rn him

. 1. Appli cability of

Chapter 95 On a pp e a l, P ainte r a

rgue s th a t c ha

pte r 9 5 is no t a

pp lic a ble to X a c t, b e c a

us e Xa c t is no t a proper ty owner . As noted above , the chapte r define s a “prope rty owner ” as “a person or entity that

owns rea l property

primarily used for commerc ial or business purposes.” T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 95.001(3). Section 95.002 deals with the applicability of the c hapter

and provide s that it applies to a claim “a g ainst a property owner , contra ctor, or subc ontrac tor for pe rsonal injury , death, or prope rty

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

or subcontrac tor

. . . .” T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 95.002(1). How ever , section 95.003, which dea ls with ex emption from liability for a cts of indepe ndent contra ctors , o n l y refers to aproper

ty o wn er , an d n ot to contrac tors, subcontrac tors, or any other pe rsons or entities. See T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 95.003. Xac t never

theless contends that section 95.003 also applies t o a subcontractor. Xact re lies

on Fi sh er v. L ee & Ch an g P ’s hip . I n Fisher , th e e mpl oy e e of an in de pe nd e nt c on tr a c tor hir e d to

make re pa ir s at a

re ta il s tor e fe ll f

rom a la dd e r a

nd su bs e qu e ntl y

br ou g ht s uit

a g a ins t th e pr op e rt

y

owner and the pr operty

manag ers. 16 S.W.3d at 200. The First Court of Appea ls he ld that chapter 95 applied to the cla im ag ainst the proper ty manag ers. Id. a t 2 0 3

. T h e c o u r t e xp la in e d th at the plaintiff alleg ed that the pr operty manag ers we re “ ag ents, repr esentatives, or employ ees” of the

owner . Id. Th e c ourt

c on c lud e d th a t “ se c . 9 5. 00 3 a pp lie s to pr op e rt

y ow ne rs and a lso to t

he ir a g e nts who over see the ir proper

ties.” Id. ; se e als o Pa dr on v . L & M Pro ps . , No. 11-02-00151- CV, 2003 WL25 39 27 , at *3 (T e x. Ap p. --Ea st lan d F e b. 6, 20 03 , n o p e t.) (a pp lyingc ha

pte r 9 5 to pr op e rt

y

mana g e me nt c omp any

); Nag le v . G OM

Sh e lf, L.L. C. , No. C iv. A. V-03-103, 2005 WL 1515439, at *4 (S .D . T e x. June 24 , 2 00 5) (h oldi ng tha t ma na g e r w ho wa s a g e nt o f o wn e r w a s e nti tle d to protec tions of chapter

95). Th e Ma ste r S e rv ic e Ag re e me nt b e tw e e n M ome ntum and Xa c t pr ov ide s in

pe rt ine nt p a rt : WHEREAS, in

th e a b s e n c e o f th e e xe c u ti o no f

a f o r ma l w r itte nc o n tr a c t f

o r e a ch pr oje c t, t he pa rt ie s h e re to d e sir e to a g re e up on and e nte r i nto a

c on tra c t w hic h w ill set forth the te rms and conditions under w hich all w o rk will be perf ormed by Contractor f

or Company

and which will be applicable to a ll pr ojects irrespe ctive of the forma lity

or informa lity

which Contrac tor is retaine d.

. . . I nd e pe nd e nt C on tr a c tor . N oth ing c on ta ine d in thi s A g re e me nt s ha ll b e c on str ue d to constitute Contractor . . . a s a par tner, e mploy ee, ag ent or “borr owed serva nt” of the Comp an y . . . n o r s h a ll e it h e r p arty h a v e an y a

u th o r it y to b in d th e o th e r in any re sp e c t.“A que stion of ag ency is ge nera lly

one of f act, a nd one may

be a n i n d epende nt contrac tor under some c ircumst an ce s y et may be an a g ent or e mploy ee in c onnection with other w ork or activities.” Lyons v. Lindsey Morde n Claims Mgmt., Inc. , 9 85 S.W. 2d 86 , 9 0 ( Te x. Ap p. -- El Pa so 19 98 , n o p e t.) ; see also Coleman v . Klöckner &Co. AG , 180 S.W .3d 577, 587 (Tex. App.--Houston [ 1 4 t h D i s t

. ] 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t

. ) ( “ [ t ] h e qu e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r ana g e n c y r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s i s g e n e r a l l y a question of fa ct”) . Although the Master Ser vices Ag ree ment does not nec essar ily prec lude the exis tence of an ag ency relationship at s ome poi nt during the dril ling ope ration, Xa ct has not shown that there is no fact issue on this question. Nor doe s Xac t cit e an y au t hority extending the protec tions of chapter 95 to an independe nt contrac tor. See Arseme nt v

. Spinnaker Exploration Co. , 40 0 F. 3d 23 8, 25 1 (5t

h Cir. 20 05 ) (s ta tin g that cha pte r 95 ap pli e s to the pr op e rt y ow ne r, bu t no t to g ener al or indepe ndent contract ors). Chapter 95 does not, in our opinion, apply to the neg lige nce

c la ims a g a ins t X a c t. 2. Xact ’s Right of Control I n support of his argument conce rning contra ct u al co ntrol, Painter points to the following provisions of the contra ct betwe en Momentum and Robinson:

Notwi t h s t an ding that this i s a F ootag e B asis contra ct, Contractor and Oper ator re cog nize that c erta in por tions of the operations a s here inafter desig nated, both above a

nd below Contrac t Footag e De pth, w i ll be perf ormed on a

Day work Ba sis. For purpos es h er eo f, the ter m “Day work” or “D ay

work B asis” mea

ns Contractor shall furnish equipment, labor, and perf orm servic es as he rein provide d, for a specifie d sum per day under the direc tion, supe rvision a nd control of Ope rator (inclusive of a

ny employ ee, ag ent, consultant or subcontrac tor eng ag ed by Oper ator to d ir e c t dr ill ingop e ratio ns ). Whe n ope ratin g on a Da y wo rk B a sis , Co ntr a c tor

sh a ll be fully paid at the applicable rate s of pay ment and assumes only the obligations and liabiliti es stated he rein a s being applicable during Day work operations. Ex cept f or such oblig ations and liabilities specifica lly assumed by Contractor, O perator shall be so le ly re sp on sib le and

a ssume s li a

bil ity fo r a ll c on se qu e nc e s of

op e ratio ns by

bo th parties while on a Day

work Ba sis, including results and all other risks or liabilities inc ur re d in or inc ide nt t o s uc h o pe ratio ns .A p p el l ant s al so argue t hat X act i s co nt rac tua ll y l i ab l e t o A p p el l ant s b y vi rt ue o f t he t erm s o f

t he D ri l l i ng 7 C o n tra c t. H o w e v e r, a s n o te d a b o v e , A p p e llan ts d id no t as se rt a c o n tra c t cla im a g a ins t M o m e n tum o r X a c t. Contractor w ill preassemble, disasse mble, or asse mble materia ls to be furnished by Oper ator only

when dire cted by

Oper ator a

nd when such work ca

n be ac complished by normal rigpersonne l. All of such s er v i ce s shall be per formed on a Day work Ba sis. Operator shall re l ea se Contrac tor from, a nd shall protect, de fend a nd indemnify

Contractor f

rom and a g ainst any

liability for suc h service

. Painter argued in his response and on appea l that the fore g oing pr ovisions vested Momentum and Xa ct, as its repr esentative, with the rig ht to c ontrol the details of the wor k done by Robinson. Ho we ve r, se c tio n 2 0. 1 o f t he Dr ill ingCon tr a c t pr ov ide s: I n the per formanc e of the work he rein c ontemplated, Contrac tor is an I n d ep en d ent Contractor, w ith the authority to control and dire ct the perf ormanc e of the de tails of the work, O perator being only interested in the r esults obtained. The w ork shall meet the ap p ro val of Ope rator a nd be subjec t to the rig ht of inspection and supe rvision here in p ro vided. Oper ator shall not unre asonably withhold approval of a ll such work, whe n perf

ormed by Contr ac t o r in ac corda

nce w ith the ge nera lly

acc epted pr a c tic e s and

me tho ds c us tom ary

in t he I nd us tr y . Co ntr a c tor

a g re e s to c omp ly

wi th a ll laws , ru le s, and re g ulatio ns , F e de ra l, State , and L oc a l, wh ic h a re no w, or

may in the future become applicable to Contractor, Contrac tor’s business, e quipment, and personne l eng ag ed in oper ations cover ed by t h i s C o n t rac t or ac cruingout of the perf ormanc e of suc h operations; provided, howeve r, as between O perator and Con tr a c tor

sp e c if ic pr ov isi on s h e re in c on ta ine d r e sp e c tin g the ri sk and re sp on sib ili ty for suc h compliance shall be controlling

. Xac t argues that, while it was e ng ag ed by Momentum to moni tor ce rtain aspe cts o f t he drilling a nd casingof the we ll, there was no evidenc e that Momentum eng ag ed Xa ct to control the operative details of the dismantling of the drilling rig or that Xac t substit uted its perfor mance for that of Momentum. Xac t further argues that the Contrac t itself only g ives Momentum broad, super visory power s over the da

y work ope rations, not the rig ht to control the opera tive details of such w ork. 7 The duty to keep the premises in a safe c ondition may impose liabilit y

on a g ener al contra ctor for ne g lige nce in two circ umstances: (1) those arising from a pr emises def ect a nd (2) those a

rising from an a ctivity

or instrumentality

. Redinger v . Living, Inc. , 689 S.W. 2d 41 5, 41 7 ( Te x. 19 85 ). Th isis a neglig ent activity case . See Coastal Marine Serv ., Inc. v . Lawrence , 988 S.W .2d 223, 225-26

(Tex. 1999)

. A gener al contra ctor ordina rily does not owe a

duty to ensure that an independe nt contra ctor pe rfor

ms its work in a safe manner . Lee Lewis Constr ., Inc. v . Harrison , 70 S.W .3d 778, 78 3 ( Te x. 20 01 ); Elliott -W illiams Co. v. Diaz , 9 S.W .3d 801, 803 (Tex. 1999). Howeve r, a duty may arise if the g ener al contra ctor “re tains some control over the manner in w hich t h e i n depende nt contra ctor pe rfor

ms its work.” Harrison , 70 S.W .3d at 783. Texas has adopted se ction 414 of the Restate m ent (S econd) of Torts. See R edinger , 689 S.W. 2d a t 41 8; Koch Refining Co. v. Chapa , 1 1 S. W.3 d 1 53 , 1 55 (T e x. 19 99 ). Se c tio n 4 14 pr ov ide s:

One who e ntrusts work to an indepe ndent contra ctor, but who re t ains the control of any part of the work, is subject to liabilit y for phy sical har

m to others for whose safe ty the employ er owes a duty to e x erc ise rea sonable car e, which is caused by his failure to e x erc ise his control with rea sonable c are . R E S TA TE ME NT (S EC OND ) O F T OR TS § 4 14 (1 97 7) . T he c omm e nts to s e c tio n 4 14 e xpla in t hat: I n order for the rule stated in this Section to a pply , the employ er must have reta ined at least some de g ree of control ove r the manne r in which the w ork is done. I t is not e no ug h th a t he ha s me re ly a g e ne ra l ri g ht to or de r the wo rk sto pp e d or re su me d, to inspect its prog ress or to r ece ive re ports, to make sug g estions or rec ommendations wh ic h n e e d n ot n e c e ssa

ri ly be fo llo we d, or

to p re scr ib e a lte ra

tio ns and de viatio ns . Such a g ener al rig ht is usually rese rved to e mploy ers, but it does not mean that the contra ctor is controlled a s to his methods of work, or as to o p er at i ve deta il. There mus t be su c h a

re te nti on of a ri g ht o f s up e rv isi on

that th e con tr actor

is n ot e nti re ly f r e e t o d o t h e w o r

k i nh i s o w nw ay. Id. a t § 4 14 c mt. c ; see also Chi Energy , 156 S.W .3d at 880 (deg ree of control reta ined must be more tha n a g e ne ra l ri g ht to or de r the wo rk sto pp e d o r r e su me d, ins pe c t it s p ro g re ss o r t o r e c e ive re po rt s, make sug g estions or rec ommend at i o n s whi ch nee d not nece ssarily be followe d, or pre scribe

a lte ratio ns and

de viatio ns ); Bell v. VPSI

, Inc. , 205 S.W .3d 706, 719 (Tex. App.--F ort Worth 2006, no pet.) (“ The re tained right of control must ex tend to the oper ative deta ils of the contra ctor’s w ork

so that he is n ot f

re e to d o th e wo rk

in h is o wn

wa y .” ); Perez v. E mb r ee C o n s t r . Group, Inc. , 228S.W .3d 875, 881 (Tex. App.--Austin 2007, pet. denied) (“a limit ed duty

arises if a g ener al contra ctor reta ins control over a

subcontrac tor’s methods of work or operative details, so that the subcontra ctor is not entirely

fre e to do the wor

k in his own way ”). No evidenc e was produce d as to any contra ct betwe en Momentum and Xa ct that provided Xac t with control over the operative details of R obinson’s work at the well site. The Ma ster Servic e Ag ree ment contains no such pr ovision, and there w as no contra ct betwe en Xa ct and Robinson. Painter relies exclusively on the Drill ing Contract between Mom entum and R obinson. He argues that sec tion 20.1 of the Drilling Contract applies only to work done on a

footag e basis, and

no t to wo rk

do ne on a da y wo rk ba sis . H ow e ve r, se c ti on 20 .1 app li e s to “ the wo rk he re in contemplated” and is not, by its terms, lim ited to footag e work. We conclude that, even a ssuming the Drilling Contract could be applied to Xac t, a non-par ty , the Drilling Contract did not ve st Xact wi t h t h e r i gh tt o co n t ro l t h e o p er at i v e d et ai l s o f R o b i n s o n ’s d i s as s em b l y o f t h e r i g. Painter also ar g ues that Xa ct ret ai ned ac tual control over the drilling ope rations. Painter points to hi s summary

judgme nt evidence conce rning X a c t’ s b il li n g r e c o r d s a n d d e p o s ition testimony

conce rnin g Fe s l er’s role as a company

man. The billing rec ords indicate that Xact c harg ed Momentum for “Prof

essional Consulting Service s for Momentum E n er gy C o rp . W el l s i t e S u

p er v i s i on undertaken on the L indsey No. 1 well, Upton Co., Te x as. By : Melvin Fesler .” The invoices show t h at Xa ct ch ar ged M o m en tu m fo r ge t t i n g t h e c as i n g re ad y , ru n n i n g ca s i n g, an d ce m en t i n g t h e c as i n g. Painter also submitted deposition testim ony conce rning Fe sler’s r ole at the well si te. Fe sler te sti fi e d that “ [a] c omp any man is se nt o ut t he re to s e e that e ve ry

thi ngis d on e a c c or din g to t he API standards f

or runningcasing

. . . . Whil e they ’re on day -work, the y are out there to see that

ever y thing is done a ccor ding to their specs.” Fe sler fur

ther testified that the company man is “the one that we nt out there and made sure that the ca sing w as rig ht, ever y thing we nt rig ht, ever

y thingwas in plac e, and e very thing wa s run at the r ight plac e and ev er y t h i n g, and eve ry

thing wa s done ri gh t

. ” I n his deposition, R obert Robinson ag ree d when a sked that the c ompany man had the ultimate say -so about the ope ration. Robinson a lso a g ree d that the company man had the rig ht and

re s p o n s i b i l i t y

t o d i ct at e t h e m an n er an d m ea n s o f t h e c o mp l et i o np ro ce d u re s wi t h re gar d

t o t h e r i g. Henr y Renbarg er, a Robinson employ ee, a g ree d when a sked at his deposition whether the company man was the “ca

ptain of that team.” Finally , Appellants poi nt to the deposit ion testimony , discussed above, that, prior to the acc ident, Fe sler direc ted Robinson cr ew members to sta nd out of th e way while the cr ew wa s removing and lay ing down casing

. Howeve r, none of the fore g oing te stimony indicates that F esler g ave Robinson any instruction ove r the ope rative de tails of laying dow n of the blowout preve nter and the rotating head. I n fac t, it is undisputed that F esler ha d walked a way from the rig prior to the time of the a ccide nt. Accor dingly , we c onclude that no e vidence was produc ed to s ho w that Xa c t e xer c ise d a c tua l c on tr ol ov e r Rob ins on wi th re g ard to the a c tiv ity that r e su lte d in the ac cident. We over

rule this issue. D. M c G uir e Indus tr ie s’ M ot ion s forSum m ar y J udgm e nt Painter asse rted ne g lige nce a nd strict liability

claims ag ainst McGuire . He a lleg ed that McGuire failed to provide any war ning or i n s t ru ct i o n on how to connec t and re move the rotating head. Paint er als o alleg ed that McG uire de signe d and manuf actur ed the r otating he ad without adequate safe ty

device s in the form of a

safe ty chain or oth er ca t ch d ev i ce to pr event the r otating he a d f ro m fa lli ng . I n ad dit ion , he a sse rt e d c la ims fo r b re a c h o f i mpl ie d w arr a nti e s o f m e rc ha

nta bil ity and fitness for

a par ticular purpose . Painte r appea ls only the trial cour

t’s summary

judgme ntI n hi s summ ary judgm ent res p o nse, P ai nt er ad d res sed onl y hi s cl ai m s t hat rel at ed t o M cG ui re’ s al l eged f ai l ure 8 to w a rn o r in stru c t. re g ard ing his n e g lig e nc e and str ic t li a bil ity c la ims a s th e y

re la te to M c Gu ir e ’s a lle g e d f a ilure to

war n. 8 Mc Gu ir e br ou g ht b oth a tr a dit ion a l and a no -e vid e nc e mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt. I n it s no-evide nce motion, McG uire argued that it was not neg lige nt, beca use there was no e vidence that McGuire o we d a d u ty

to provide wa

rning s or instructions with the rotating head c oncer ning the number o f b o lt s to b e u s e d d u r in g d is a s s e mb ly o r an y p r e f e r r e d p r o c e d

u r e f o r la y in g down the blowout preve nter stack. Wit h reg ard to Painter’s strict li ability claim, McGuire argued that ther e

was no e vidence of a ma

rketing defe ct, bec ause it had no duty to warn of

an open a nd obvious dang er and ther e wa s n o ev i d en ce that any war nings c oncer

ning r emoval of the rotating head w ere

n e c e s s ar y. 1. McG uire’s Sum m ary Judgm ent Evidence I n it s tr a dit ion a l moti on fo r s umm ary jud g me nt, Mc Gu ir e argue d th a t it wa s e nti tle d to summary judgme nt on Painter’s strict-liability marke ting c laim, beca

use the re moval of the rotating h e a d b y t i p p i n g i to v e r

w i t h o n l y t w o b o l t s a t t a c h e d w a s a no p e nan d o b v i o u s d an g e r . S i m i l a r l y, McGuire argued that it was e ntitled to judgment on Painter’s ne g lige nce c laim, beca use i t had no duty to warn or

provide instructions as to obvious ri s k s . As evidenc e, McG uire attached the deposition te stimony of var ious employ ees of Robinson, including Painter, who te stified that, as par t of his duties, he had pr eviously been e ng aged in hooking up or taking apar

t the rotating head. Pa int e r a lso te sti fi e d a s f

oll ow s: Q: Okay . Sitt ing her e- -and Ithink y ou said befor e, sitting he re toda y y ou wer e unawa re that there w as ever any discussions at all about bolt s being remove d in any wa y , c or re c t?A: Yes, sir.

Q: Okay

. Had a

ny body ever told y ou that any

of those bolts had simply

been ba cked out? I n other words, not c ompletely remove d but perha ps removed most of the w ay or pa rt ia lly and the n ma y be ma de ha

nd tig ht? A: No, sir. Q: I f the bolts secur ing the rotating head to the BOP were just hand tig ht, that wo uld n’ t be ri g ht, c or

re c t? MR. KE RB Y: Ob

je c tio n, fo rm . A: Cor re c t. Q: (B Y MR. ECHOL S) That would be a n incorre ct proc edure ? A: Yes, sir. McGuire also attac h ed t h e depositi on testimony of Tony Painter, the driller

on Appellant Painter’s shift. Mr. Painter te stif i ed t hat he wa s only

able to use f

our to six holes in the blowout pr e ve nte r to whi c h he wa s to atta c h the ro ta tin g he a d, be c a us e the thr e a ds we re “ me sse d u p” or fu ll of ce ment. He f

urther te stified that he had a dditional bolts , but was unable to use them, beca use he “didn’t have the holes” in the blowout preve nter to scre w them down. Mr. Painter testified that he had re ported the pr oblem, but Robinson had taken no action to his knowledg e. He testified that he had bee n told that there we re two bolts re maining in the r o t at i n g h ea d b efor e the a ccide nt. Mr. Painter fur

ther testified that he had laid a blowout preve nter a

nd rotating head ove r with only two bolts in t he past. He ag ree d that having as many bolts in as possibl e would be a safe r proc edure , but te sti fi e d th a t “ it w ou ld h a ve too k me that mu c h long e r wh e n I g ot it lay ing do wn to ta ke the m bo lts out.” McGuire also attache d portions of the de position of Renbarg er, a n employ ee of

Robinson, who worke d as a toolpusher during the time of the a ccide nt. Renbarg er te stified that the methodused to lay down the blowout pr evente r stack the day of the ac cident wa s a common occ urre nce on

an o il w e ll. Re nb arg e r a lso te sti fi e d a s f oll ow s: Q: I s the rea son that y ou wou l d h av e fr owned upon that a nd the re ason that y ou believe that would be stupid is because it’s common sense that the more bolts y ou have in plac e sec uring the rotating h ea d t o the B OP, the safe r it is to lay down the BO P stack? MR. TH OM PSO N: F or

m. A: Well, y es. Jus t like it’s co m m o n sense that you don’t want to take them out beca use it will fall off. MR. THOMPSON: Nonresponsive. Q: I n o the r w or ds , th e be st pr a c tic e and the pr a c tic e that y ou

a ll f oll ow e d w a s to make sure tha

t th e re we re su ff

ic ie nt b olt s se c ur ingthe ro ta tin g he a d to the B OP s o that it would not fall off? A: Yes, sir. MR. TH OM PSO N: F or

m. Q: An d it is- -a g a in, it’ s c omm on

se ns e that th e mor e y ou

have , th e be tte r, ri g ht? MR. TH OM PSO N: F or

m. A: Yes, sir. Renbarg er a lso testified that he did not need any war nings, that he did not expect that Tony Painter would have ne eded a

ny war nings to know that there neede d to be more studs secur ing the rotating head be fore the B OP stack wa s laid over, a nd that he knew

this at the time. McGuire attach ed excerpts from the de position of W illiam R y an L ocke, a Robinson

e mpl oy e e , who wa s o n th e sh if t im me diate ly

pr ior to P a int e r’ s. L oc ke te sti fi e d th a t he ins tr uc te d h is

cre w to remove two bolts of th e fo ur bolts securingthe rotating head to the blowout pr evente r, be c a us e he wa s to ld t o d o s o. L oc ke ma de sure that he c ou ld t urn th em by

ha nd . L oc ke a lso testified:Q: All r ight. Do y ou know whether or not there was a ny safe r or pr efe rre d method of laying dow n-- A: Yes, should have taken the r otating he ad off

. MR. TH OM PSO N: F or

m.

. . . Q: All rig ht. At what point in time did y ou come up, then, w ith y our under standing that it ’s mor e a

pp ro pr ia te to t a ke the ro ta tin g he a d o ff fi rs t? MR. TH OM PSO N: F or

m. A: Ithink the first time Iever did it and then when the a ccide nt happene d. Also attache d to McGuire’ s motion were ex ce rp t s from the de position of Daniel Nunn, a Robinson employ ee at the time of the acc ident. Nunn testified that L ocke told him to remove two of the four

bolts securing the rotating head a nd to leave the rema ining bolts hand- tightene d. Nunn told L ocke that he would have taken the w hole thing of f. Nunn fur

ther testified: Q: What ex actly

did y ou tell Mr. L ocke? A: Itold him, “This is bullshit .” Q : O k ay. A. “I wouldn’t do it like that.” Q: Ok ay . Wh e n y ou

say , “ Th is i s b ull sh it, ” did y ou te ll h im w hat w a s b ull sh it? A: Yea h. Q: Te ll me a s be st y ou c an re me mbe r the e xac t wo rd s y ou us e d wh e n y ou tol d h im. A: Ic an’ t r e me mbe r t

hat g re a t. Q: Ok ay . We ll, te ll m e be st you c an r e me mbe r. What di d y ou te ll h im? A : J u s tt o l d

h i m t h a tw e s h o u l dn ’ td o i tt h a tw ay. Q: Shouldn’t do what--A: I t should be taken off and sat on the ground before y ou ever lay y our stack ove r.

McGuire at t ac h edt h e d ep o s i t i o no f R o b er tR o b i n s o n , wh o t es t i fi edt h at h i s company ’s ver bal proce dure w ith respec t to a blowout preve nter and a rotating head was to “unbolt it and take it off

and lay it o n th e g ro un d. ” Mr . Ro bin so n a lso te sti fi e d a s f oll ow s: Q: Would t here be any

rea son to take out all but two of t he bolt s on a rotatinghead and then be g in to lay

it down? MR. TH OM PSO N: F or

m. A : N o , I d o n ’ ts e e w h y. Q: Di d y ’a ll ha ve any

pr oc e dure in p la c e wh e re that w ou ld h a ve be e n a n a pp ro pr ia te action, take all but two bolts out and then beg in to lay the ver tical assembly

down? MR. TH OM PSO N: F or

m. A: No. 2. P ainter’s Sum m ary Judgm ent Evidence I n his summary -judg ment response , P aint er a rg ued that the da

ng er r elating to the rotating head w as not open a

nd obvious, beca

use R obinson had used the method of tipping over the blowout preve nter a

nd rotating head w heneve r it removed a rotating head a

nd that McGuire failed to wa rn or instruct as to the pr oper pr ocedur e to remove the rotating head, w hich, ac cordingto Weldon McGuire , was to re move the rotating he ad fr om the blowout preve nter s tack while the blowout pr e ve nte r w a s u

pr ig ht. Painter attac hed portions of the de position of W eldon McGuire . Mr. McGuire stated that the po rt ion of the ro ta tin g he a d th a t f

e ll d ur ing th e ac c ide nt w e ig he d a pp ro xima te ly

1, 50 0 p ound s. McGuire did not provide any instructions or war

nings w ith the rotating head, nor di d McGuire rent bo lts to M ome ntum for the ro ta tin g he a d. Mr . McG uir e a lso te sti fi e d th a t, w he n h is c omp any re nts out a complete blowout stac k, including the rotating head, its normal pr ocedur e wa s to have a manon location at the r ate of $55 per h o u r t o s ee that the stack is put toge ther prope rly . Howeve r, Mcg uire doe s not provide someone to super vise assembly

when o n l y a ro t at ing he ad is rente d. McGuire s en ds a compa ny repr esentative to supervise disassembly of a c omplete stack w hen reque ste d

. M r. M cG uire a lso testified that, when the r otating he ad is remove d from the blowout pr e ve nte r, it i s u su a lly

un bo lte d, lif te d o ff , a nd se t on the grou nd and that th is w a s n e c e ssa

ry to d i s a s s e mb l e t h e h e a d s a f e l y . W h e n a s s e m b l i n g t h e b l o w o u t p r e v e n t e r , M c G u i r e ’ s s u p e rv iso r i s instructed to use a ll twenty bolts when attac hing the rotating head to the blowout pr evente r. Pa int e r a lso a tta c he d por

tio ns of the de po sit ion

of He nr y Re nb arg e r. Re nb arg e r d id n ot r e c a ll any instructions or war

nings c oncer

ning how many b o l t s should be attac hed to the rotating he ad. Re nb arg e r a lso te sti fi e d th a t, i f M c Gu ir e ha d p ro vid e d a wa rn inga s to the numbe r of bo lts to u se in attachingthe rotating head, he would have followed i t. Painter also pointed to deposition testimony by To ny Pa int e r a nd Willi a m L oc ke ind ic a tin g that th e me tho d u se d th e da y of the a c c ide nt t o disassemble the blowout pre venter stack wa s the method that Robinson used to remove the stac k.3. P ain te r ’s St r ic t L iab ili tyCl aim

On appe al, Painter a

rg ues that its summary

judgme nt evidence and the r easona ble infer ence s there from showe d that McGuire was a war e of the risk of har m fr o m improperly assembling and disassem b l i n g the rotating head a nd that McGuire failed to g ive prope r wa rning s or instructions

c o n c e r n i n g a s s e mb l y an d

d i s a s s e mb l y. Texas has adopted the theory of strict produc ts liabili ty expressed in section 402A of the Restatement (Sec ond) of Tor ts. Cat e rp illar

, I nc . v . S he ar s , 911 S.W .2d 379, 381 (Tex. 1995) (citing McKisson v. Sales Affiliates, Inc. , 4 16 S.W. 2d 78 7, 78 8- 89 (T e x. 19 67 ))

. “ A de fe nd ant’ s f a ilure to

war n of a pr odu ct ’s potential dang ers whe n war nings a re r equire d is a ty

pe of ma rketing defe ct.” Am e ric an Tob ac c o Co . v . G rin ne ll , 951 S.W .2d 420, 426 (Tex. 1997). The e lements of a ma rketing defe ct claim are : (1) a risk of harm that is inherent in the produc t or that may arise f rom the intended

or re a so na bly anti c ipate d u se of

the pr od uc t; ( 2) the su

pp lie r o f t

he pr od uc t kn ow s o r r e a so na

bly should forese e the r isk of har m at the time the produc t is marketed; (3) the produc t has a mar keting defe ct; (4) the la ck of w arning s or instructions ren d er s the product unr easona bly dang erous to the ultimate user or c onsumer; and ( 5) the fa ilure to war n or i nstruct causes t he user ’s injury

. Ranger Con v e y ing & Su pp ly Co. v . D av is , 2 54 S.W. 3d 47 1, 48 0 ( Te x. Ap p. -- Ho us ton [1st Di st. ] 200 7, pe t. de nie d) ; Goodye ar Tire & Rubber Co. v. Rios , 143 S.W .3d 107, 116 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2004, pet. denied)

. There is, however , no duty to warn when a pr oduct’s risks ar e within the ordinar y common knowledg e of the community

. J os e ph E. Se ag

ra m & So ns , In c . v . M

c Gu ire , 814 S.W .2d 385, 388 (Tex. 1991). I n addition, the law of pr oducts liability does not require a manufacture r or distributor to warn of o b v i o u s ri s k s . Caterpillar , 9 11 S.W. 2d a t 38 2; se e als o G rin ne ll , 951 S.W .2d at 426; Lozano v. H.D. Indus., Inc

. , 953 S.W .2d 304, 314 (Tex. A pp.--El Paso 1997, no pet.) (“Aparty hasno du ty

to w arn of ob vio us ri sk s, sin c e a

re a dil y a pp are nt dang e r s e rv e s th e same fu nc tio n a s a

wa rn ing .” ); Hanus v. Tex as Utils. Co. , 71 S.W .3d 874, 880 (Tex. A pp.--F ort Worth 2002, no pet.) (“a manufa cture r has no duty to war n of obvious risks beca

use a r eadily

appar ent dang er se rves the

same fu nc tio n a s a

wa rn ing ” ); Roland v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. , 33 S.W .3d 468, 469 (Tex. App.-- Austin 2000, pet. denied) ( “In T ex as , a m an u fac turer ha s no duty to warn of

open and obvious da ng e rs .” ). Thus , the re is onl y a du ty to w arn or ins tr uc t c on c e rn ingri sk s o f w hic h th e c on su me r i s

unawa re. Caterpillar , 911 S.W .2d at 382. “The consumer ’s per spective is that of a n ordinary

user of the produc t, not necessa rily the same as that of an or dinary person unf

amiliar with the produc t.” Sauder Custom Fabrication, Inc. v. Boy d , 967 S.W .2d 349, 351 (Tex. 1998). Moreove r, “[w]hen the fore seea

ble users of

a produc t have spe cial tra ining, a supplier has no duty

to warn of risks that should be obvious to them, even if pe rsons without such training wo u l d n o t appre ciate the risks.” Humble Sand &Grave l, Inc. v . Gomez , 146 S.W .3d 170, 183 (Tex. 2004). Th e qu e sti on

of wh e the r a du ty e xists to wa rn of the da

ng e rs or ins tr

uc t a s to the pr op e r u se of a pr oduct is a question of law

. Seagram &Sons , 8 14 S.W. 2d a t 38 7; Gr inn e ll , 951 S.W .2d at 426. L ikewise, “ [w] hether

a dang er is open and obvious as a matter of law is an objective que stion for the court to dete rmine.” Lozano , 953 S.W .2d at 314. Painter ar g ues that a f

act issue e x ists as to whe ther the dang er relating to the rotating head

was open and obvious. Specifica lly , Painter argues that Robinson’s standa rd proce dure for dis a sse mbl ingthe ro ta tin g he a d w a s to lay do wn the blo wo ut pr e ve nte r s ta c k a nd to l e a ve tw o b olt s hand-tig ht in the rotating head, w hen doing so. Painter furthe r arg ues t hat M cGuire did not produce any evidenc e that Robinson had ever had a rotating head fall befor e when following this procedur e. I n Caterpillar , the plaintiff, Shear s, suff e r e d in ju r ie s wh il e o p e r a

ti n g a fr ont-end loade r, whe n he wa s struck by

another loader

. Caterpillar , 911 S.W .2d at 381. Shear s broug ht strict-liability andneg lige nce c laims ag ai nst the manufac turer of the loader

for f ailing to wa

rn him of the hazar ds of operating a l o ad er wi t h out a rollover pr otective struc ture (“ ROPS ”). Id. at 380. The e vidence showed that Shea

rs was a n experience d operator of hea vy equipment. Shear s testified that he ha d

s een machiner

y equipped with a ROPS, but he thoug ht it was to protect the ope rator f rom the

weather a nd had no idea

of the risks of ope rating a fr ont-end loade r without a ROPS. Id. at 383. The Supreme Court he ld that Caterpillar did not, as a matter of law, ha

ve a duty to warn. Id. That Shear s

was a n experience d heavy equipment operator who had appare ntly never been injure d by

virtue of op e ratin g a

loa de r wi tho ut RO PS did no t pr e c lud e a fi nd ing that the da ng e r of c oll isi on

wa s o bv iou s. Simi larl y , th e fa c t th a t Ro bin so n ha d p re vio us ly re mov e d th e blo wo ut p re ve nte r s ta c k b y tip pin g it over doe s not preclude a dete rmination that the risks involved in tipping over a rotating he ad sec ured by two hand-tig ht bolts were obvious. As discussed a bove, the question of whether a risk is open and obvious is an objective one

. Lozano , 953 S.W .2d at 314. The e vidence is undisputed that the rotating head w as sec ured by no more than two ha

ndtight bolt s a t t

h e ti me th e dr il li n g c r e w a tt e mp te d to ti p o v e r

th e b lo w o u t p r e v e n te r

s ta c k

. The evidenc e is a lso undisputed that the portion of the rotating head that struck Appellants weig hed

a pp ro xima te ly

1, 50 0 p ound s. We c on c lud e that the da ng e rs of an ob

je c t of that w e ig ht, se c ur e d o nly by tw o h and -t ig ht b olt s, fa lli ngwh e n ti pp e d o ve r f ro m th e top of a

dr ill ingri g are op e n a

nd ob vio us . See Hanus , 7 1 S. W. 3 d

a t 8 8 0 ( a f

f ir mi n g s u mm ar

y ju d g me n t o nma

r k e ti n g c la im , b e c a

u s e d a ng er fr om dig g ing int o bur ie d pow e r lin e s wa s both ob vio us and

c omm on ly

kn ow n) ; Ritz Car W

ash, Inc.

v . Ka sti s , 9 76 S.W. 2d

81 2, 81 4 ( Te x. Ap p. -- Ho us ton [1st Di st. ] 199 8, pe t. d e nie d) (m e c ha nic wi th over f orty y ear s’ experienc e, who wa s burned while dr aining g aso l i n e fr o m ga s tank, could not pr e va il o n ma

rk e tin g de fe c t c la im, be c a us e fl a mma

bil ity of g a so lin e wa s o bv iou s) ; Colem a n v. Cintas Sal es Corp. , 100 S.W .3d 384, 386 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2002, pet. de nied) (holding , asa matter

of law, that it is commonly known that non-flame reta rdant clothing will bur

n if exposed to a flame ). We overr

ule this issue.

4. P ain te r ’s Ne gli ge nc e Cl aim Pa int e r’ s ne g lig e nc e c la im wa s a lso ba se d on Mc Gu ir e ’s a lle g e d fa ilure to w arn and ins tr uc t. On appe al, P ainter makes t he same arguments that he makes with reg ard to his marke ting c laim. The elements of a

claim for ne g lige nce a

re the exis tence of a duty , brea ch of th at d u t y , and dama g es proxi mately

cause d by

that brea ch. Ga rc ia v. El Pa so Ltd . P ’s hip , 2 0 3 S. W. 3 d

4 3 2 , 4 3 5

- 3 6 ( T e x. App.--E l Paso 2006, no pet.). I n the context of Painter’s cla im, the threshold question is whether M cG uire owe d a leg al duty to warn of

the alleg ed dang er a ssociated with the r otating he ad. See Mor ga n v . W al- Ma rt Stores, Inc. , 3 0 S. W.3 d 4 55 , 4 61 (T e x. Ap p. -- Au sti n 2 00 0, pe t. d e ni ed). Whe the r a du ty e xists is

a question of law for the court. Ga rc ia , 203 S.W .3d at 436. Be cause we have alr eady conclude d that McGuire did not have a duty to warn w ith reg ard to Pai n t er ’s s trict-liability claim, we hold that McGuire is not li able unde r Painter’ s neg lige nt failure to wa rn cla im. See Saude r , 9 6 7 S. W. 2 d at 351 (re fu s in g

to allow rec overy

on either pr oducts-liability or neg lige nt failure- to-war n claims, when risk was obvious to aver ag e consume r). We over rule this issue.III . C ON CL USI ON

The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

KENNET H R. CARR, J ustice November

20, 2008 B e f o r e C h e w , C

. J. , M c C l u r e , a n d C ar r , JJ.