Court Opinion

ID: 9883359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 01:40:46.818376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:22.845673
License: Public Domain

ITALLEY, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the majority opinion in holding both defendants liable, but I do not believe that the Franklin Drilling Company is liable under section 296, Title 52, O. S. 1941, for the reason that the reading of that statute, which is as follows:
“No inflammable product from any oil or gas well shall be permitted to run into any tank, pool or stream used for watering stock; and all waste of oil and refuse from tanks or wells shall be drained into proper receptacles at a safe distance from the tanks, wells or buildings, and be immediately burned or transported from the premises, and in no case shall it be permitted to flow over the land. Salt water shall not be allowed to flow over the surface of the land,”
shows clearly that it was intended to apply only to those persons who are the owners or the operators of the oil property. It is intended primarily to cover a situation where these products are permitted to flow over the land of another, and to prevent this was the duty of the lessee and not of the drilling contractor.
In my opinion, the drilling company is liable under section 6 of art. II and section 23 of art. II of the Oklahoma Constitution, and under section 1, Title 76, O. S. 1941. These provisions of the Constitution and of the statute have put into effect in Oklahoma the maxim of common lav/, “Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas”, and the defendant drilling company is liable whether or not it was negligent in the case. Tibbets and Pleasant v. Benedict, 128 Okla. 106, 261 P. 551; British-American Oil Producing Co. et al. v. McClain et vir, 191 Okla. 40, 126 P. 2d 530; Fairfax Oil Co. v. Bolinger, 186 Okla. 20, 97 P. 2d 574; St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co. v. Matthews, 174 Okla. 167, 49 P. 2d 752. The rule laid down in Green et ux. v. General Petro*693leum Corporation, 205 Cal. 328, 270 P. 952, 60 A.L.R. 475, is the correct one, and involved facts very similar to the case at bar, except that in that case it was the lessee who was held liable regardless of its negligence, and there was no statutory provision like section 296 involved.
The fact that the drilling company occupied the position of servant in a master and servant relationship in this instance did not release it. from its duty not to injure the plaintiff in his property. This statement is found in 57 C.J.S., Master and Servant, sec. 577, p. 346:
“Generally, it is not the servant’s contract with his .master which exposes the servant to or protects him from liability to third persons, and liability does not arise from the existence of the relation of master and servant. The servant’s liability arises from his breach of a duty owed to a third person under the law, or, as otherwise stated, from the servant’s common-law obligation so to use that which he controls as not to injure another.”
Citing Ryan v. Standard Oil Co. of Indiana, Mo. App., 144 S. W. 2d 170; Southern Ry. Co. v. Smith, 55 Ga. App. 689, 191 S. E. 181; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Knight, 48 Ga. App. 53, 171 S. E. 919.
I do not think that the drilling company is liable to the extent that the majority opinion makes it. It was no longer on the premises after 60 days from the drilling of the well. The record shows that the most favorable testimony for the plaintiff was that the oats would make 45 bushels (maybe) and that there were 23 acres, which would make a total yield of 1,035 bushels. Expenses that were not incurred, which should be deducted, are: cost of cutting at $1,50 per acre, or $34.50; cost of shocking, $1 per acre, or $23; cost of threshing, 3 cents per bushel, or $31.05; cost of hauling tenant’s share, 2 cents per bushel on 690 bushels, or $13.80. The landlord should have gotten 345 bushels. The tenant is entitled to recover for 690 bushels at 75 cents per bushel, or $577.50, less the deductible items, which total $102.35, leaving a total due the plaintiff on the oats of $415.15. This amount is the highest that could be allowed the plaintiff under the testimony on the oats. There is evidence that sustains the judgment on the other items allowed, so the amount of the judgment against the oil company should be $1,802.65. The evidence shows that the cotton, hegari and cane could have been planted after the drilling company had left the lease, so there is no liability upon it for those items, which total $400. $77 was allowed as a deduction on these items in the court’s judgment, and also $17.50 on the damage to the garden, so $417.50 should be deducted from the judgment against the drilling company rather than $95; so that part of the judgment for which the drilling company is liable should have been only $1,487.50.