Court Opinion

ID: 9789057
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:26:34.733263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:19.130140
License: Public Domain

*545REIF, J.,
dissenting:
4 1 I respectfully dissent.
T2 As the record discloses, the assembly of the oil rig at the well site in question was an activity that required special skill, expertise and heightened care by all of those involved in the activity. It was obvious from the size and weight of the components being moved and assembled that there was great danger and imminent risk of injury if the equipment or techniques employed were inadequate, or were not properly directed and coordinated. Given the driller's complete control of the place where the rig was to be assembled, as well as the employment of contractors to perform the dangerous work at the well site, the duty to safely move and assemble the rig at the well site remained the nondelegable duty of the driller independent of the activity of the parties actually moving and assembling the equipment.
T3 A nondelegable duty means that an employer of an independent contractor, by assigning work consequent to a duty, is not relieved from liability arising from the delegated duties negligently performed. Kime v. Hobbs, 252 Neb. 407, 562 N.W.2d 705, 713-14 (1997). One such nondelegable duty is the duty of care imposed on an employer of an independent contractor when the contractor's work involves special risks or dangers, including work that is inherently dangerous in the absence of special precautions. Id. at 417, 562 N.W.2d 705. A special or peculiar risk is one the "differ[s] from the common risks to which persons in general are commonly subjected by ordinary forms of negligence which are usual to the community [and] involve[s] some special hazard resulting from the nature of the work being done, which calls for special precautions." Id. This Court has said the issue of whether a duty is nondelegable is a question of law. Bouzsiden v. Alfalfa Electric Cooperative, Inc., 2000 OK 50, 16 P.3d 450.
4 I would hold that the driller's liability for the injury in question turns on nondele-gable duty and not whether the driller exercised "exclusive control" over the components, equipment or personnel moving them. In short, this is not a proper case of res ipsa loquitur, but of vicarious liability based on a nondelegable duty.