Opinion ID: 25349
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Activities Ultrahazardous De Jure

Text: 44 Within this framework, the Plaintiffs' claims against Kerr-McGee must be analyzed against the backdrop of vicarious tort liability under Louisiana law. A well-established general rule under Louisiana law is that a principal is not liable for the delictual or quasi-delictual offenses (torts) committed by an agent who is an independent contractor in the course of performing its contractual duties. 57 There are, however, two equally well-established exceptions to this rule: A principal may be liable (1) if it maintains operational control over the activity in question, or (2) if, even absent such control, the activity engaged in by the independent contractor is ultrahazardous. 58 Given the Plaintiffs' concession that Kerr-McGee did not retain the requisite operational control over Cardinal, Kerr-McGee could only be held liable in tort for damages caused to the Plaintiffs when Cardinal's wireline perforating gun discharged accidentally if that independent contractor's use of the device constituted an ultrahazardous activity and produced the injury. Thus, the dispositive question here is whether Cardinal's use of the wireline perforation gun in the p&a activity that it was performing for Kerr-McGee, being the activity that inflicted injury on Roberts, was ultrahazardous. 59 45 Under Louisiana law, an activity may be ultrahazardous either as a matter of law or by classification under the test that has been created judicially. Again, activities that have been categorized in Louisiana as ultrahazardous as a matter of law are (1) storage of toxic gas, (2) crop dusting with airplanes, (3) pile driving, and (4) blasting with explosives. 60 As the Louisiana Supreme Court observed in Kent v. Gulf States Utilities, each of these four undertakings is an activity that can cause injury to others, even when conducted with the greatest prudence and care. 61 46 This concept is embodied in the jurisprudential test for ultrahazardous activities that we outlined in Perkins v. F. I. E. Corp. 62 Under the Perkins test, an activity is ultrahazardous if it (1) relates to land or to other immovables; (2) causes the injury, and the defendant was directly engaged in the injury-producing activity; and (3) does not require the substandard conduct of a third party to cause injury. 63 47 The Plaintiffs insist that wireline perforation is a manifestation of blasting with explosives, and should therefore be classified as an ultrahazardous activity as a matter of law. We disagree. In Fontenot v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 64 the case that decreed blasting with explosives to be an ultrahazardous activity, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed a judgment in favor of defendants whose geophysical exploration activities on the property of one owner caused damage to the plaintiffs' homes on adjoining land. The geophysical operations involved the intentional detonation of 10-pound charges of Nitramon S at a depth of approximately 70 feet below the surface, and the damage to the plaintiffs' homes (including cracks in walls and ceilings, and broken cement foundations) was alleged to have resulted from the vibrations and concussions radiating in the soil from the point of the explosions conducted by defendants. 65 The Fontenot court observed: 48 It has been universally recognized that when, as here, the defendant, though without fault, is engaged in a lawful business, conducted according to modern and approved methods and with reasonable care, by such activities causes risk or peril to others, the doctrine of absolute liability is clearly applicable. 66 49 Stated differently, even though the blasting may have been conducted responsibly and according to the latest accepted methods, the defendants were nonetheless accountable for any unavoidable damage that flowed from the activity. 50 Subsequently, in Schexnayder v. Bunge Corp., 67 we characterizedFontenot as involving purposeful subterranean explosions in connection with oil exploration, and approved the trial court's jury instruction on ultrahazardous activities, which stated that [a]n ultra-hazardous activity is an activity which [sic], even when conducted with the greatest of care and prudence, could cause a foreseeable harm or damage to those in the neighborhood. 68 Thus, for over a quarter-century we have adhered to the Louisiana Supreme Court's reasoning in Fontenot for classifying the subsurface detonation of explosives as ultrahazardous: Foreseeably, such an activity could cause unavoidable collateral damage to neighbors, even if conducted with due care. 51 Lowering a perforation gun down a well on a wireline and firing it to pierce drill pipe or tubing in an oil and gas well simply does not fit within this rubric. In sharp contrast to the damage incurred by the neighbors in Fontenot, which was inflicted on structures located off the owners' premises by the inevitable, omni-directional underground shock waves produced by the intentional blasting on the owners' premises, the injuries incurred by Roberts were caused by the accidental detonation of the shaped-charge ammunition of the perforation gun, not downhole as intended but at the surface of the owner's premises, i.e., on the Kerr-McGee fixed platform. As we have noted, a perforation gun's shaped charges fire only in the direction toward which their open, conical ends are pointed. When conducted according to modern and approved methods and with reasonable care, 69 a perforating gun is lowered down a well to a predetermined depth, is fired in one or more predetermined directions, produces a force sufficient only to pierce the tubing or casing, and, at most, a matter of but several additional inches of the adjacent formation. The firing of the shaped charges causes virtually no incidental damage to the gun or the wellbore, and no collateral damage whatsoever by way of vibrations, even to the owner's premises, much less to adjoining property, no matter how proximate. 52 In the unfortunate occurrence that injured Roberts, the business end of the shaped charges ---- like the muzzle of a gun ---- happened to be pointed in his direction at a time when the gun was at the surface rather than downhole. His severe injuries were a direct, primary result of the gun's accidental firing, not collateral damage from shock waves or vibrations. And the unintentional firing of the gun was caused by an act of man, presumably the opening of the valve, in turn causing a spike in pressure. We therefore reject the Plaintiffs' contention that the wireline perforation activity during which Roberts was injured is a variety of blasting with explosives and thus ultrahazardous as a matter of law. 53