Opinion ID: 168966
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Standard of Care/Breach

Text: Farrell Cooper next argues that there was no “evidence as to the standard of care required for a blasting operation,” and therefore, the jury had no “basis upon which to determine whether [Farrell Cooper] breached its standard of care to the M cDonalds.” Aplt. Br. at 15. But standard of care and breach are elements of negligence, see Johnson v. Hillcrest Health Ctr., Inc., 70 P.3d 811, 816, 817 (Okla. 2003), and are not required to prove strict liability for ultrahazardous conduct, see Wetsel v. Ind. Sch. Dist. I-1, 670 P.2d 986, 990 (Okla. 1983). The Oklahoma Supreme Court has unambiguously held since 1957 that a plaintiff need not “allege and prove negligence on the part of defendant before plaintiff can recover property damage caused by blasting.” Smith v. Yoho, 324 P.2d 531, 533 (Okla. 1958) (citing Seismograph Serv. Corp. v. Buchanan, 316 P.2d 185 (Okla. 1957)). “[T]he liability of a user of explosives is absolute and not -8- predicated on the user’s negligence.” Id.; see also Superior Oil Co. v. King, 324 P.2d 847, 848 (O kla. 1958) (observing that “[s]ince . . . Seismograph Service . . . it is immaterial whether there was negligence,” and approving a jury instruction imposing liability “without regard to the degree of care employed in discharging the blast”); Ward v. H. B. Zachry Const. Co., 570 F.2d 892, 895-96 (10th Cir. 1978) (collecting cases and observing that Oklahoma law on the use of explosives “impos[es] liability without regard to negligence”). All that the plaintiff need prove is that the property was damaged directly and proximately by explosion. States Exploration Co. v. Reynolds, 344 P.2d 275, 278 (Okla. 1959). W hile North American seeks to uphold the judgment under negligence principles, “[w]e may affirm on any ground adequately presented to the district court.” Griffith v. Colo., Div. of Youth Servs., 17 F.3d 1323, 1328 (10th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). Before trial, North American identified the “theory of ultrahazardous activity” in the pretrial order as a triable issue, Aplt. A pp., Vol. 1 at 80, and during trial North American sought to proceed under that theory instead of negligence and to have the jury so instructed, id., Vol. 2 at 591. Further, contrary to the district court’s ruling, North American’s third-party complaint can be read as asserting an ultrahazardous-activity theory, notwithstanding the complaint’s one isolated reference to “negligence.” See 5 Charles A . W right & Arthur R. M iller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, at 227 (3d ed. 2004) (stating that a pleading must contain allegations from which to infer that evidence -9- exists on the “material point[s] necessary to sustain a recovery on any recognizable legal theory, even though that theory may not be the one suggested or intended by the pleader”). Because the theory of ultrahazardous activity was presented to the district court— indeed, it was the only theory under Oklahoma law that applied— we conclude that any failure by North American to proffer evidence of the standard of care for blasting or of breach was irrelevant to the judgment, and therefore harmless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 61.