Title: Public Service Company of Oklahoma v. Fort Worth Grain Exchange
Citation: 1998 OK 89, 69OBJ3106, 988 P.2d 323
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: September 15, 1998

Public Service Company of Oklahoma v. Fort Worth Grain Exchange Annotate this Case Public Service Company of Oklahoma v. Fort Worth Grain Exchange 1998 OK 89 988 P.2d 323 69 OBJ 3106 Case Number: 91102 Decided: 09/15/1998 Mandate Issued: 09/17/1999 Supreme Court of Oklahoma PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee, v. FORT WORTH GRAIN EXCHANGE, Appellant. APPEAL FROM DISTRICT COURT, TULSA COUNTY; Honorable Sharron Bubenik, Judge. ¶0 Electric utility brought indemnity action against employer of injured worker based on "six foot" rule found at title 63, section 981, of Oklahoma statutes. Trial court granted summary judgment for utility. Employer appeals. TRIAL COURT REVERSED; CAUSE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Micky Walsh, Oklahoma City, For Appellant. G. Michael Lewis, Jon E. Brightmire, Shelly L. Dalrymple, Doerner, Saunders, Daniel & Anderson, L.L.P., Tulsa, Oklahoma, For Appellee. [988 P.2d 324] HODGES, J. ¶1This is an indemnity action. The underlying action resulted from injuries sustained by an employee of Appellant, Fort Worth Grain Exchange (Employer). The employee suffered electrical shock while standing on a railway car and using a metal probe to sample grain. The probe touched a high-voltage electric line owned by Appellee, Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO). ¶2The employee sued PSO, the manufacturer of the grain probe, and the owners of the grain elevator where the accident occurred. PSO brought Employer into the action as a third-party defendant alleging that Employer was required to indemnify PSO for any liability PSO incurred from the accident. The underlying action was dismissed when the employee reached settlements with the defendants. PSO paid the injured worker $610,000.00. In a separate proceeding, Employer paid workers' compensation benefits to its injured employee. PSO then brought this indemnity action against Employer to recover the $610,000.00 paid to the injured worker. ¶3The trial court entered summary judgment for PSO, despite Employer's demands for a jury trial to determine the issues of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk. Judgment was entered for the entire amount PSO paid to Employer's injured employee. ¶4Employer claims the trial court erred by granting summary judgment while issues of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk remained unresolved. PSO asserts the trial court's judgment was required under the liability imposed by the "six foot" rule found at title 63, section 981, of the Oklahoma statutes and the indemnity provision found at section 984. ¶5 Section 981 prohibits anyone from doing anything which might place a person or an object within six feet of any electric line or conductor. ¶6 Employer argues that because it has paid workers' compensation benefits to its injured worker, the exclusive remedy provisions ¶7Employer then relies on section 987 of title 63 which states that the "six foot" rule does not apply to "the operation or maintenance of any equipment traveling or moving upon fixed rails of any railroad company subject to the Interstate Commerce Commission and/or to the Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma." Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 987(c) (1991). However, the injured worker was sampling grain that merely happened to be in a railway car. His activities had nothing to do with the operation or maintenance of railroad equipment. Employer's reliance on section 987 is misplaced. ¶8Finally, Employer invokes article 23, section 6, of the Oklahoma Constitution which provides that "[t]he defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of the risk shall, in all cases . . . whatsoever, be a question of fact and shall at all times, be left to the jury." It argues that the trial court's summary judgment against it was therefore error. ¶9Employer is correct in asserting that it has been deprived of its opportunity to have a jury decide the issue of the injured worker's part in the electrocution. This Court has "expressly noted that the defense of contributory negligence is available to a defendant in a [section] 984 indemnity claim . . . against the employer." Ring, 775 P.2d at 1358 (citing Travelers, 770 P.2d at 556 n.18). On remand the trial court is directed to submit issues of contributory negligence or assumption of the risk to a jury as questions of fact. TRIAL COURT REVERSED; CAUSE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. ¶10Kauger, C.J., Hodges, Lavender, Hargrave, Opala, Watt, JJ., concur ¶11Summers, V.C.J., Simms, Wilson, JJ., concur in part; dissent in part. FOOT