Opinion ID: 1393548
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The proximate cause of Mike Hull's damages

Text: Proximate cause is the notion that the accident or injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the act of negligence. Bettencourt v. Pride Well Service, Inc., 735 P.2d 722, 726 (Wyo.1987) (quoting McClellan v. Tottenhoff, 666 P.2d 408, 414 (Wyo.1983)). Normally, proximate cause is a question of fact unless the evidence is such that reasonable minds could not disagree. Buckley v. Bell, 703 P.2d 1089, 1092 (Wyo. 1985); Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Donahue, 674 P.2d 1276, 1283 (Wyo.1983). Legal causation has been defined as that conduct which is a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff's injuries. Buckley, 703 P.2d at 1091. [I]f the conduct is that cause which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by a sufficient intervening cause produces the injury, without which the result would not have occurred, it must be identified as a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. If, however, it created only a condition or occasion for the harm to occur then it would be regarded as a remote, not a proximate, cause, and would not be a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. Buckley, 703 P.2d at 1092 ( quoting Lemos v. Madden, 28 Wyo. 1, 10, 200 P. 791, 793 (1921)). See also, Bettencourt, 735 P.2d at 726. Appellant argues that the sole proximate cause of Mike Hull's injuries was the TWS' crew's failure to attach the safety chains. We disagree, because the record supports findings of concurrent causes. Concurrent negligence involves acts of negligence of two or more people that, although not working in concert, combine to produce a single injury. Green v. Sellers, 413 P.2d 522, 528 (Okl.1966). More than one proximate cause can exist for an accident or injury. Each concurrent cause that contributes directly to the accident or injury is a proximate cause. `[W]here injury results from two separate and distinct acts of negligence by different persons operating and concurring simultaneously and concurrently, both are the proximate cause and recovery may be had against either or both of the responsible persons.' Hester v. Coliseum Motor Co., 41 Wyo. 345, 353, 285 P. 781 (1930) (quoting DeWees v. Kuntz, 280 P. 552 (Cal.App.1929)). See also, Frazier v. Pokorny, 349 P.2d 324 (Wyo.1960); Phelps v. Woodward Constr. Co., 66 Wyo. 33, 204 P.2d 179 (1948). Mike Hull's injuries were caused by a string of events, which culminated in the June 17 accident. Both the hurried atmosphere at the worksite and the failure to attach the safety chains to the chicksan and kelly hose were contributing factors: 1. The hurried atmosphereAppellee's expert, Jerry Warren, stated that he did not feel the crew should have been pressured. He felt that the crew was rushed so much that they didn't have time to stop and think what they were doing. John Nodolf said, [M]aybe if we weren't working... in a rush to try to get everything done, we might have thought about putting the safety cable on. Jack Wiggins, the derrick hand, testified that, based upon his observations and his years of experience in the oil field, being rushed was the cause of Mike Hull's injury. 2. The failure to attach the safety chainsDuane Winkler, NGP's on-site representative, admitted knowing that, as a safety precaution, the kelly hose and chicksan should be tied off. He failed, however, to instruct the crew to attach the safety chains on the date of the accident. Testimony in the record shows that this was not the first time Winkler had failed to see that the safety chains were attached. Likewise, the TWS crew knew that the safety chains should have been attached to the chicksan and kelly hose and failed to attach them as required by OSHA regulations. The jury was instructed on comparative fault and was asked to determine the percentage of fault attributable to each of the parties involved in the accident. After its deliberations, the jury found four different individuals/entities negligent with regard to the June 17 accident: NGP (Appellant), Mike Hull (Appellee), John Nodolf (the driller/rig operator), and Jack Wiggins (the derrick hand). The jury recognized that more than one proximate cause existed and so noted in its verdict. Evidence adduced at trial supports the jury's finding that concurrent causes existed for Hull's injuries.