Opinion ID: 25349
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ultrahazardous De Facto

Text: 54 Wireline perforation also fails to meet at least one of the three conjunctive prongs of the broader Perkins test for ultrahazardousness under Louisiana law. The parties agree that wireline perforation of a well in connection with a p&a operation relates to land or to other immovables, and we shall assumearguendo that, through Cardinal, its independent contractor, Kerr-McGee was directly engaged in the wireline perforation activity even though the requisite control over Cardinal had not been retained by Kerr-McGee. 70 Thus, we are concerned here only with the third prong of the Perkins test, whether wireline perforation is an activity that can cause injury to others, even when conducted with the greatest prudence and care. 71 For essentially the same reasons that distinguish the perforation activity from blasting with explosives, we hold that the former is not a manifestation of the latter. 55 First, there is ample evidence in the record to support the contention that wireline perforation, whether employing electrically or pressure-activated firing heads to detonate the shaped charges, can be, and indeed generally is, safely performed thousands of times a year. There is further evidence suggesting that when the (infrequent) accident does occur in connection with wireline perforation, it is directly traceable to human error, either in the initial choice to employ a pressure-activated device in a particular well, or in the failure correctly to follow safety procedures. These features of wireline perforation are similar to the transmission of electricity over power lines which was the challenged activity in Kent. Regarding that activity, the Kentcourt stated that the transmission of electricity over isolated high tension power lines is an everyday occurrence in every parish in this state and can be done without a high degree of risk of injury. 72 The same can be said with equal certainty of wireline perforation of oil and gas wells. We therefore conclude that, unlike the stereotypical ultrahazardous activities recognized by statutes and courts of Louisiana, wireline perforation is likely to cause damage only when there is substandard conduct on someone's part. 73 None can dispute that this declaration is applicable to the sequence of events that transpired in the instant accident; it apparently occurred when someone opened the downhole valve, which increased the pressure, causing the perforation gun to fire while it was at the surface rather than hundreds of feet down the wellbore, as intended. 56 This position is consistent with our prior decisions. InAinsworth v. Shell Offshore, Inc., 74 we concluded that drilling operations do not satisfy the third [element of the Perkins test], holding that such activities were not ultrahazardous. 75 As observed by the district court and reiterated above, wireline perforation is performed frequently in conjunction with both enhancing the flow of oil and gas in a well and plugging and abandoning particular strata or entire wells. This comports with the intermediate appellate court's observation in Bergeron v. Blake Drilling & Workover Co., Inc. 76 that [a] well cannot produce oil or gas unless it is perforated. Thus, perforation is an internal and indispensable element of every well. 77 Wireline perforation is therefore easily classifiable as a drilling operation, and thus not ultrahazardous under Ainsworth. 57 We distinguish our holding today from the Bergeron court's holding which at first blush appears to be to the contrary. InBergeron, a Louisiana court of appeal stated, even if one found that perforating was not ultrahazardous[,] a finding that perforating is a [sic] inherently and intrinsically dangerous work is unavoidable. 78 As the district court in the instant case correctly noted, however, the Bergeron court stopped short of classifying wireline perforation as an ultrahazardous activity, characterizing it instead as inherently dangerous, in the law of Louisiana a distinctly different term of art. Here, the district court continued: 58 By holding Kerr-McGee liable under article 2315 for [an] inherently dangerous activity, this Court would be expanding the Louisiana Supreme Court's policy behind ultrahazardous activity as announced in [Kent]. In Kent, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the ultrahazardous activity classification was created for the rare instances in which the activity can cause injury to others, even when conducted with the greatest prudence and care. This Court does not find that an inherently dangerous activity fits within the special category of ultrahazardous liability. 79 59 We adopt this reasoning, adding only the observation that the perforating gun in Bergeron had a firing head that was activated by electricity, not by pressure as in the instant case. 80 In contrast to electrical firing of some perforation guns, only the external application of sufficient psi of pressure can detonate a pressure-activated firing head like the one involved in Roberts's injury. Thus, the difference between an activity that is inherently dangerous and one that is ultrahazardous serves to distinguishBergeron from the instant case, and the difference in the risk of accidental discharge between the firing devices involved in the two cases distinguishes them even further. 60 In summary, when we view the operable facts of the instant case in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs as non-movants, we are satisfied that use of a wireline perforation gun in a p&a operation cannot be held to be an ultrahazardous activity, eitherde jure or de facto. Not only is such perforation factually distinguishable from blasting with explosives, an actuality that would render such perforation an ultrahazardous activity as a matter of law were it not distinguishable; wireline perforation also fails to satisfy the third prong of the Perkins test, which requires the activity to be one that is likely to cause injury to others, even when conducted with the greatest prudence and care. This simply cannot be said of wireline perforation, which is conducted routinely in oilfield drilling, completing, producing, and plugging operations; and in which even the extremely infrequent accident is traceable to substandard human conduct. 61 The imposition of liability on a principal for acts of an independent contractor is permitted only in narrow circumstances. Like the district court before us, we are not willing to increase the range of circumstances when the courts and legislature of Louisiana have not seen fit to do so. Our pronouncement in CNG Producing Co. remains as true today as when it was uttered: We would not subject this activity to strict liability without certain directions from the Louisiana courts 81 to which we would add, or the Legislature.