Opinion ID: 5207
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Varco top drive was overtorqued.

Text: (2) The pipe dope used as recommended by Varco contained zinc compound. (3) Zinc compound is improper and this contributed to the over-torquing of the top drive. (4) The over-torquing of the top drive contributed to this accident. Record on Appeal, vol. 3, at 889. 4 Specifically, ODECO and Conoco stated that the connection which was frozen had become frozen due to the negligence of Varco in recommending improper pipe dope and/or in improperly constructing the connection. Record on Appeal, vol. 3, at 791–92. 5 ODECO and Conoco did not submit any summary judgment evidence to controvert the evidence proffered by Varco in its summary judgment motion. ODECO's and Conoco's Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment was accompanied by a Reply to [Varco's] Statement of Uncontested Material Facts. law that the negligence of ODECO and Conoco constitutes a superseding cause of Donaghey's injuries. (1) Contrary to ODECO's and Conoco's assertions, Varco never admitted it was negligent, but rather it stated in its summary judgment motion that, [e]ven if the connection was overtorqued as a result of the negligence of Varco (which is denied by Varco), the accident occurred not because of the overtorqued connection but because the Odeco Senior Toolpusher knowingly chose to exceed the rated capacity of the tongs. Record on Appeal, vol. 2, at 386. Varco proffered the deposition testimony of Pittman to show that, at Pittman's instruction, the tongs were pulled in excess of their rated capacity and the tongs broke because they were stressed out. We find that Pittman's deposition testimony—the only summary judgment evidence submitted by Varco6—may support the conclusion that the negligence of ODECO and Conoco contributed to the accident which led to Donaghey's injuries. However, we find that this evidence is insufficient to establish, as a matter of law, that Varco's actions were not a legal cause of Donaghey's injuries. Second, we find that the letters and the copy of the investigation report which indicate that Varco's actions contributed to the accident7 create a fact question with respect to Varco's liability. Third, the 6 See supra note 2. 7 For example, the conclusion in the investigation report states: Seizure of the HWDP and top drive connection resulted from inadequate galling protection from the thread dope employed on these connections. The occurrence of seizure only on new shoulders and threads further supports this conclusion. Stress calculated from application of the torsional, tensile, and hydrostatic forces during attempted freeing of the stuck drill do not appear adequate to overcome the connection preload imposed by normal makeup torque. The calculated stresses are less than one-half the yield strength of API specified minimum mechanical requirements and approximately one-third the reported actual yield strength of the top drive tools. Record on Appeal, vol. 3, at 877. record also creates a fact question as to causation because it indicates that the events that led to Donaghey's injuries were placed into motion only after the Varco-manufactured connection froze, and the ODECO crew attempted to break it.8 Accordingly, we hold that a fact question exists whether Varco's actions constitute a legal cause of the accident and the district court erred i n granting summary judgment on the grounds that, as a matter of law, any negligence of Varco was not the legal cause of plaintiff's injury.