Court Opinion

ID: 9443559
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:24:51.589437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:32.320232
License: Public Domain

PHILLIPS, Chief Judge,
(dissenting).
A. J. Kaiser was the owner of the northwest %, of the northwest % of the northeast %. of Section 34, Township 13 North, Range 3 West, in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. The laud abuts Oklahoma State Highway No. 66. On January 26, 1951, the traveled portion of the highway was paved and a fence on the land, located several feet south of the south boundary line of the highway right of way, ran parallel to the highway.
On April 12, 1918, Kaiser executed and delivered to the Oklahoma Natural Gas Corporation1 a right of way agreement by which he granted to the Gas Corporation a right of way on, over and through such laud to lay, maintain, operate, relay and remove a pipe line 40 rods long for the purpose of transporting natural gas, with right of ingress and egress to and from such right of way. The agreement recited that the pipe line should be located in accordance with a plat attached to the agreement. The plat showed that the pipe line should be laid parallel to, and two feet north of the fence. It will be observed that the right of way grant covered both surface and subsurface rights. The pipe line was laid and thereafter maintained on the land at the location specified in the plat.
By statute in Oklahoma the Gas Corporation was required to furnish gas to the landowner at the rate it charged in the nearest city or town and for that purpose to provide a connection for the consumer’s service line with the pipe line. See 52 Okl.St.Ann. § 10. The Gas Corporation installed a riser in the pipe line on its right of way and for a time furnished gas to a house on the land. Prior to January 26, 1951, the service of gas to the house had been discontinued and the service line disconnected. However, the Gas Corporation permitted the riser to remain, with its upper end buried approximately two inches underneath the surface of the ground.
On January 26, 1951, Concho Construction Company2 was engaged in the performance of a contract for removing dirt *676near WKY substation, east of Britton, Oklahoma, and in removing such dirt was using a Caterpillar tractor, equipped with hydraulic controls, traxcavator, and bulldozer. The equipment was being driven by an employee of Concho. A fire broke out in a trash pile on the premises where Concho was carrying out its work under its contract. The wind was blowing from a southwesterly direction toward Highway 66. The employee of Concho drove the Caterpillar tractor, with its equipment, to the highway right of way and to the east of the point to which the fire had spread. When he arrived at that point the fire was spreading eastwardly on the south side of the highway right of way. To prevent the further spread of the fire along the highway right of way, the employee started building a fire-break from the paved portion of the highway to the fence line. While building the fire-break the operator lowered the blade of the bulldozer about two inches and moved the grass and debris forward. While traveling west between the paved portion of the highway and the fence line, the blade struck the riser, causing gas to escape, which became ignited. The fire prevented the employee from removing the tractor and its equipment and it was destroyed by the fire. Concho brought this action against the Gas Corporation to recover damages resulting from the destruction of the Caterpillar and its equipment.
Concho was not responsible'for the fire and owed no legal obligation to undertake to put out or confine the fire. Concho was under" no legal or contractual duty to the state to maintain or protect the highway.
Both Concho and the Gas Corporation interposed motions for summary judgment. The parties agreed that the court, for the purpose of disposing of the motions, might consider the pleadings and answers to interrogatories, affidavits and depositions on file, which reflected the facts stated above. The trial court concluded that Concho was a trespasser and entered a summary judgment for the Gas Corporation.
The public and each member thereof has a common and equal right to make reasonable use of highways for the purposes of travel and transportation and for purposes and uses incidental thereto.3
In the absence of a statute or ordinance requiring them so to do, a private person or corporation is under no obligation by reason of the ownership or occupancy of abutting premises, or otherwise, to undertake highway improvements or to maintain the highway in repair, except to the extent of repairing defects caused by their own acts, or to protect the highway from injury, except against dangers created by them4 In the absence of a statute or municipal ordinance providing otherwise, a member of a public fire department who enters on premises in the discharge of his duty is a *677mere licensee, to whom the owner or occupant of such premises owes a duty to refrain from the infliction of wilful or wanton injury 5 and to use reasonable care not to injure him through affirmative or active negligence, as distinguished from passive negligence, or from natural or artificial conditions on the premises..6 While the owner or occupant is liable for affirmative or active negligence, he is not liable for injuries growing o<ut oí a permanent or fixed condition of the premises.7
A private person, who, without invitation by, and without contractual relationship to the owner or occupant of premises, enters such premises to put otit or confine a fire, having no legal duty to do so, is a volunteer or naked licensee, and the owner or occupant of such premises owes him no greater duty than to refrain from the infliction of wilful or intentional injury8 and from affirmative or active negligence, as distinguished from passive negligence.9 The owner or occupant is not liable to such volunteer for injuries growing out of a permanent or fixed condition of the premises.10
The owner or occupant is also under the duty of warning a licensee or volunteer of concealed dangers after his presence is *678discovered.11 The negligence arises from the failure to warn, not from maintaining the dangerous condition.12 Here, the Gas Corporation had no opportunity to warn Concho’s employee of the existence of the concealed gas riser.
If, at the time of the accident, Concho’s employee had been using the highway for the purpose of travel, passage or transportation and had been driving the Caterpillar tractor and its accessory equipment along the unpaved portion of the highway, rather than on the paved portion, as is customary with such heavy equipment, and believing that the highway extended to the fence line, and in the exercise of due care, had contacted and broken the riser and as a proximate result thereof injuries to the Caterpillar tractor and its accessory equipment occurred, I would readily agree that there were issues of fact which should be submitted to the court or jury at a trial on the merits.
In all of the cases cited in Note 3 to the majority opinion the injured person was using the public way for the purpose of travel, passage, transportation, or uses incidental thereto. I have been unable to find any adjudicated case holding that an abutting owner is liable for injuries suffered because of a dangerous condition on his adjoining premises by a person using the highway for purposes other than travel, passage, transportation, or purposes incidental thereto;
Here, Concho’s employee entered upon the unpaved portion of the highway, not for the purpose of travel, passage, transportation, or any use incidental thereto, but solely for the purpose of confining the fire by digging up and moving the surface dirt so as to create a fire-break. In so doing he also entered upon the abutting land and upon the right of way of the Gas Corporation, which included both surface and sub-surface rights, and dug up and moved the surface dirt thereof. He may have done so believing that the highway extended to the fence line. If the owner of the highway had owned and maintained the gas line and riser on the highway, the relationship of Concho to the owner of the highway would have been that of a volunteer. Equally, I think, it must be true that when Concho’s employee entered upon the abutting land and upon the right of way of the Gas Corporation for the purpose of confining the fire, his relationship to the land owner and the Gas Corporation was that of a volunteer.
I do not think the fact that Concho’s employee entered upon the right of way of the Gas Corporation and the abutting land, reasonably believing that the highway extended to the fence line, is important. The important facts are that Concho’s employee entered upon the highway, the the right of way of the Gas Corporation, and the abutting land, not for the purpose of passage, travel or transportation, or any purpose incidental thereto, but for the purpose of digging up and moving the surface dirt to create a fire-break, without an invitation from the owner of the highway, the Gas Corporation, or the land owner and without a legal duty, contractual or otherwise, to any of them, so to do.
If A enters the premises of B under facts and circumstances under which his relationship to B is that of a volunteer and C maintains adjoining premises under facts and conditions that would warrant the belief on the part of A that they are a part of B’s premises, and A also enters C’s premises believing they are a part of B’s premises, surely no higher relationship exists between A and C than between A and B and no higher duty devolves ttpon C to A than devolves upon B to A. The mere fact that A entered C’s premises *679under a mistake as to their ownership could not create a different relationship between A and C or impose a greater duty on C to A.
Accordingly, it is my opinion that the relationship of Concho to the Gas Corporation, when Concho’s employee entered the right of way of the Gas Corporation, for the purpose of confining the fire, was that of a volunteer, and that there was no breach by the Gas Corporation of any duty owing by it to Concho, rendering the Gas Corporation liable for the injury and damage to the Caterpillar tractor and its accessory equipment. Hence, I would affirm the judgment.

. Hereinafter called the Gas Corporation.

. Hereinafter called Concho.

. Hildebrand v. Southern Bell T. & T. Co., 219 N.C. 402, 14 S.E.2d 252, 255; Carli v. Stillwater Street Ry. & T. Co., 28 Minn. 373, 10 N.W. 205, 206; Commonwealth v. Morrison, 197 Mass. 199, 83 N.E, 415, 416, 417, 14 L.R.A.,N.S., 194; Escobedo v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 35 Cal.2d 870, 222 P.2d 1, 5; McKay v. Public Utilities Commission, 104 Colo. 402, 91 P.2d 965, 969; City of Boston v. A. W. Perry, Inc., 304 Mass. 18, 22 N.E.2d 627, 629; State v. Potomac Edison Co., 166 Md. 138, 170 A. 568, 570; 25 Am.Jur., Highways, p. 456, § 163.
In Hildebrand v. Southern Bell T. & T. Co., supra, the court said, 14 S.E.2d at page 255:
“An easement acquired for use as a public highway is acquired for a public use but not for all public uses. The use is limited to the right of the public generally to pass and repass, to travel on foot or with any kind of vehicle. * * * ’’

. Weller v. McCormick, 47 N.J.L. 397, 1 A. 516, 518; Gabrielsen v. City of Seattle, 150 Wash. 157, 272 P. 723, 729, 63 A.L.R. 200; Lucas v. St. Louis & S. Ry. Co., 174 Mo. 270, 73 S.W. 589, 591, 61 L.R.A. 452; Hanley v. Fireproof Bldg. Co., 107 Neb. 544, 186 N.W. 534, 535, 24 A.L.R. 382; Harris v. Farmers’ & Merchants’ State Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 239 S.W. 1027, 1028; Stewart v. Sheidley, 223 Mo.App. 554, 16 S.W.2d 607, 610; 25 Am.Jur., Highways, p. 377, § 64.

. Todd v. Armour & Co., 44 Ga.App. 609, 162 S.E. 394; Lunt v. Post P. & P. Co., 48 Colo. 316, 110 P. 203, 205, 30 L.R.A.,N.S., 60; New Omaha Thomson Elec. L. Co. v. Anderson, 73 Neb. 84, 102 N.W. 89, 92; Woodruff v. Bowen, 136 Ind. 431, 34 N.E. 1113, 1116, 1117, 22 L.R.A. 198; Gibson v. Leonard, 143 Ill. 182, 32 N.E. 182, 183, 17 L.R.A. 588; Pennebaker v. San Joaquin L. & P. Co., 158 Cal. 579, 112 P. 459, 463, 31. L.R.A.,N.S., 1099; Notes, 13 A.L.R. 638; 141 A.L.R. 585.

. Houston Belt & T. Ry. Co. v. O’Leary, Tex.Civ.App., 136 S.W. 601, 604, 605; Newman v. Fox West Coast Theatres, 86 Cal.App.2d 428, 194 P.2d 706, 707, 708; Davis v. Tredwell, 347 Pa. 341, 32 A.2d 411, 413; New Omaha Thomson-Houston Elec. L. Co., 73 Neb. 84, 102 N.W. 89, 92; Woodruff v. Bowen, 136 Ind. 431, 34 N.E. 1113, 1117; 65 C.J.S., Negligence, § 35 h, p. 500. Note, 13 A.L.R. 644.

 Carbone v. Mackchil Realty Corp., 296 N.Y. 154, 71 N.E.2d 447, 449; Birch v. City of New York, 190 N.Y. 397, 83 N.E. 51, 53, 18 L.R.A.,N.S., 595.

 Hughes v. Shanafelt, 203 Okl. 80, 218 P.2d 350, 351; Glines v. Maine Cent. R. R., 94 N.H. 299, 52 A.2d 298, 300, 301; Mann v. Des Moines Ry. Co., 232 Iowa 1049, 7 N.W.2d 45, 53 ; 65 C.J.S., Negligence, § 62, p. 554; Slier v. State, 194 Misc. 172, 86 N.Y.S.2d 266, 268, 269; Lucas v. Kelley, 102 Vt. 173, 147 A. 281, 283; See also, Gibson v. Leonard, 143 Ill. 182, 32 N.E. 182, 184.
In Hughes v. Shanafelt, supra, the court said [203 Old. 80, 218 P.2d 351]:
“ * * * it ja contended that no contractual relationship existed between tile parties, and since plaintiff was a more volunteer defendant did not owe plaintiff the duty to exercise ordinary care for his protection. To sustain such argument defendant relies upon the following principle of law as laid down in 45 C.J., Negligence, § 253: ‘It has been considered that one who is engaged in work or an operation owes to another who undertakes to assist him as a mere volunteer, without invitation and without contractual relationship, no duty of ordinary care and is not liable for an injury received by such volunteer unless guilty of gross negligence, wilfulness or wantonness.’
“Also cited and relied upon by defendant in support of the above rule are the following cases: Richardson v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 1 Cir., 175 F. 897; Western Truck Lines v. Du Vaull, 57 Ariz. 199, 112 P.2d 589, and Hatcher v. Cantrell, 16 Tenn.App. 544, 65 S.W.2d 247, both of the latter cases citing the rule as announced in tlhe Richardson case, supra. Consideration of these cases will reveal that in each case the court expressly determined that the injured party voluntarily, and without necessity, entered into the place of danger without any duty requiring this, or any request for them to do so. Undoubtedly, in such cases the rule of nonliability for injuries received under such circumstances must apply, in the absence of gross, wilful or wanton negligence.”

. Sher v. State, 194 Misc. 172, 86 N.Y.S.2d 266, 289.

. Birch v. City of New York, 190 N.Y. 397, 83 N.E. 51, 53, 18 L.R.A.,N.S., 595; Carbone v. Mackchil Realty Corp., 296 N.Y. 154, 71 N.E.2d 447, 449.

. Rawlins v. Pickren, 45 Ga.App. 261, 164 S.E. 223, 224; Cobb v. First Nat. Bank of Atlanta, 58 Ga.App. 160, 198 S.E. 111, 114; Beehler v. Daniels, 18 R. I. 563, 29 A. 6, 7, 27 L.R.A. 512; Watson v. Manitou & Pikes Peak Ry. Co., 41 Colo. 138, 92 P. 17, 19, 17 L.R.A.,N.S., 916; Jenkins v. 313-321 W. 37th Street Corp., 284 N.Y. 397, 31 N.E.2d 503, 504; Lunt v. Post P. & P. Co., 48 Colo. 816, 110 P. 203, 207, 30 L.R.A.,N.S., 60; 65 C.J.S., Negligence, § 38, pp. 503, 504.

. Locke v. Payne, 81 N.H. 266, 124 A. 668; 65 C.J.S., Negligence, § 38, p. 504.