Opinion ID: 8591
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Errors Two, Three, and Four

Text: 15 Justiss' assertions two, three, and four are grounded in a single argument that the district court erred in finding Justiss employees introduced into Tank 29 the source of fuel for the explosion and flash fire. For example, in disputing the district court's ruling on Kerr-McGee's counterclaims, Justiss states: 16 In the Memorandum Ruling issued on October 26, 1994, the Trial Court found that the actions of Justiss/Baker Tank Company were grossly negligent. In his oral ruling the Trial Court described the crew as reckless. Such rulings can only be predicated on the finding that the Justiss crew brought gasoline into the tank, virtually insuring their own demise. 17 Such a finding and the Trial Court's favorable ruling on the Kerr-McGee Counterclaim are totally and completely unsupported by the evidence. A complete review of the record will show that such a finding is clearly erroneous and not the truth and right of the case. ... 18