Opinion ID: 1123474
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Both ONG and Jones Violated the Act

Text: Section 142.6.B of the Act required ONG to locate and mark or otherwise provide the approximate location of the underground facilities ... in such a manner as to enable the excavator to employ hand-dug test holes to determine the precise location of the underground facilities in advance of excavation... . For the purpose of this act, the approximate location of the underground facilities shall be defined as a strip of land two (2) feet on either side of such underground facilities. ONG contends that it cannot be held liable for its failure to accurately mark the location of its line in the first instance, because Jones had an obligation to actually locate the line by digging manually before starting to work with a power auger. The language of the Act does not support ONG's contention, because § 142.7.A of the Act requires the excavator to determine the precise location of underground facilities only when he intends to excavate directly over marked routes of underground facilities. [1] The record shows that Jones was digging outside the four-feet wide strip marked by ONG when the explosion occurred. Thus, Jones had no obligation to precisely locate ONG's line because he was not digging directly over the route marked by ONG. The Act unambiguously requires an operator of underground facilities to designate the approximate location of its facilities with sufficient accuracy to allow others to assume that the facilities are somewhere within the fourfeet wide strip the operator marked. Only when an excavator finds it necessary to dig within the four-feet wide strip is it required to precisely locate the facility by hand digging. Section 142.6.D of the Act expressly requires that notices include the names and address of the excavator, the type and extent of the proposed excavation, and the date and time when work is to begin. Grooms's One Call System notice listed only his sprinkler system work, not the fence work that Jones was to do for Robinson. Thus, Jones and Robinson could not rely on the One Call System notice that Grooms had given. Had Grooms said in his One Call System notice that Robinson would be installing a fence after Grooms completed his work, however, Jones and Robinson would have been relieved of any obligation to give a second One Call System notice. Whether and to what extent Jones's violation of the Act caused or contributed to Jones's injuries addresses the issue of Jones's contributory negligence, and must be left to the jury. The defense of contributory negligence ... shall, in all cases whatsoever, be a question of fact, and shall at all times be left to the jury. Okla. Const. Art. 23 § 6.