Court Opinion

ID: 9777447
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:11:13.457125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:59.628909
License: Public Domain

DENTON, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. In my opinion the majority opinion has not correctly applied the facts of this case as reflected by the record to the applicable law.
Hope Birmingham was injured on April 14, 1967, when a Lorain MC-425 crane fell from the drilling platform located in the Gulf of Mexico offshore from Mustang Island. He died from such injuries without regaining consciousness on April 16, 1967. The crane in question was manufactured by the Thew Shovel Company, the predecessor of Koehring Company, a defendant, and was sold in January 1956 to Brewster-Bartle Drilling Company, Inc., predecessor of Diamond M Drilling Company, Inc., by Head & Guild Equipment Company who was a distributor of Lorain Cranes. The latter two companies are also defendants. At the completion of some workover operations in 1956, Brewster-Bartle sold the crane to Gulf Oil Corporation. Gulf Oil was the owner of the drilling platform and crane which fell from the drilling platform when Birmingham was fatally injured.
In December 1966, Flournoy Drilling Company, another defendant, contracted with Gulf to workover two oil wells owned by Gulf which were located underneath Gulf’s platform involved here. The workover operation began in December 1966 and continued until April 1967. The *919operation had been completed, and the equipment belonging to Flournoy Drilling Company was being moved off of the platform at the time of the accident which resulted in the death of Birmingham. The crane was used to lift all of the equipment, personnel and supplies onto and off the platform except for light loads which were transported to the platform by helicopter which was operating under contract with Gulf. The crane had a rated lifting capacity of 25 tons and a 10 foot radius with a 30 foot boom. The crane sits upon a circular base called a bearing race ring gear, which rotates. It is bolted to the bearing race ring gear by 12 bolts 1⅛" in diameter, eight of which were 4" long and four were 4½ ” in length.
Prior to the dismantling process the various pieces of equipment had been weighed by Flournoy personnel. Kalvin Gernandt, the tool pusher for Flournoy, had planned where each piece of equipment was to be placed on the boat. Gernandt was giving directions for the loading of the equipment on the boat by giving signals to Birmingham; he was telling him what to pick up and where to place it on the boat. Prior to the accident various pieces of equipment from the platform had been lifted onto the boat, including a superstructure in two pieces, one of which weighed 19,000 pounds and the other 20,000 pounds, and a draw works weighing 23,700 pounds. Later, a pump weighing 12,580 pounds was picked up and lowered to within four feet of the deck of the boat. It was being held in a stationary position while the boat was being moved up to a position so that the pump could be lowered into the boat and placed in the desired position on the boat. The pump was held in this position for a period estimated from eight to fifteen minutes while the boat was being moved so that the pump could be lowered to its intended position. Suddenly and without warning the bolts which held the crane to its base broke and stripped, and the crane toppled from its platform. The crane hit the deck of the boat and slid into the water. Birmingham was lodged under some equipment on the deck of the boat. He died some two days later as a result of the injuries he received from the accident.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were negligent in: (1) that the defendants failed to make reasonable and proper inspections of the bolts which failed; (2) that the defendants failed to discover rusted and corroded bolts; (3) that the defendants failed to properly maintain the crane; (4) that the defendants were negligent in installing bolts with less strength than manufacturer’s specifications; and (5) that plaintiff had a right to recover on the theory of res ipsa loquitur.
Since this is an instructed verdict case, the court must review the evidence in its most favorable light in support of the plaintiffs’ position. Anderson v. Moore, 448 S.W.2d 105 (Tex.1969); Seideneck v. Cal Bayreuther Associates, 451 S.W.2d 752 (Tex.1970). A proper determination of these law questions must be based on an acceptance of the evidence and the inferences therefrom most favorable to the plaintiffs’ case, discarding contrary evidence and inferences. White v. White, 141 Tex. 328, 172 S.W.2d 295 (1943); Triangle Motors of Dallas v. Richmond, 152 Tex. 354, 258 S.W.2d 60 (1953).
In March 1956, while the crane was being operated by a tool pusher for Brewster-Bartle, the bolts in the base of the crane sheared off and the crane eased down on the load as it was in the process of lifting. Because the boom of the crane was over the platform at the time it fell the blowout preventor settled to the deck of the platform and the crane did not fall from its pedestal. It is undisputed that Gulf was notified of the breaking of the bolts at the base of the crane. New bolts were furnished by the Lorain Crane dealer, Head & Guild. The tool pusher installed the twelve new bolts in March 1956. He had no knowledge of the type of bolts, or their strength; nor of how much torque should be placed on the bolts in tightening them to the platform.
*920The first ground of negligence was that the defendants failed to make reasonable and proper inspection of the bolts which failed. Gulf Oil did not know whether the bolts installed in 1956 were ever taken out, moved or removed during the eleven-year period from the time of the installation until the time they broke. A Gulf supervisor admitted that they had not maintained any inspection or maintenance records concerning the crane or the specific bolts in question. It was also conceded that during the eleven-year period no tests were made by Gulf or on its behalf to determine the strength of the bolts; nor did Gulf have any information with respect to tests or inspections made by third parties. Mr. Ray Charitat, the production foreman for Gulf, testified that to the best of his knowledge the bolts had never been removed; that he had no specific knowledge of whether the bolts had ever been inspected between 1958 and 1967; that as a routine matter of maintenance the bolts of the crane were not removed and treated with rust inhibitor when the rest of the crane was so treated; and that he had never requested Head & Guild to treat the bolts or to examine them for rust or for any other condition.
By interrogatories, Head & Guild answered that its employees, agents and servants had not inspected the bolts which fastened the crane to the platform prior to the date of the accident on April 14, 1967. Kalvin Gernandt, the tool pusher for Flour-noy Drilling Co., testified that to his knowledge no one with Flournoy Drilling had at any time prior to the accident ever checked the bolts by which the crane was • mounted to the stand. This testimony was corroborated by the president of Flournoy.
After the crane collapsed from its mounting in April 1967, at the time of this accident, it was discovered that one of the bolts that secured the crane to its pedestal did not meet the manufacturer’s specification. This bolt had coarse threads, that is, seven threads per inch rather than twelve threads per inch as specified by the manufacturer ; and had a squarehead rather than the specified hexagonal head. The record is silent as to how or when this bolt was placed in the base of the crane. Mr. Thomas Manning testified it was not done by Brewster-Bartle in 1956, when the crane first fell. Although the record shows that a coarse thread bolt has a more reduced surface strength or clamping qualities than a fine thread bolt, the evidence is that this coarse thread bolt and nut did not strip. This bolt failed like the other bolts which failed by fatigue fracture. I am convinced that the evidence in this case did not raise an issue of causation relative to the bolt that did not meet the manufacturer’s specification.
Plaintiffs called as an expert witness Mr. Richard Matthaei, a registered professional engineer and consulting metallurgist. Mr. Matthaei testified, after inspecting the bolts in question prior to the trial, that it was his opinion the bolts failed because of a fatigue type fracture. Although he was unable to define the term “fatigue”, he did describe the mechanism by which the failure occurred. He stated that the term fatigue was not correctly described as “tired” metal. He described the term as one that was caused by cyclic loading or stressing of the metal — that is loading and unloading —that metal had an “endurance limit” which is 50% of its ultimate strength; and that fatigue occurs only after metal has been cyclically loaded beyond its endurance limit. He explained the fatigue’s fracture as occurring in two stages — first a microscopic fracture or crack which progresses across the bolt reducing its diameter until the diameter is reduced to the point that the remaining vertical portion of the shank of the bolt is reduced in cross-sectional area to a point where it has insufficient strength to support a nominal load, whereupon it simply pulls apart with a straight tensile failure. He attributed fatigue fracture failure to cyclic stressing of loading and unloading and vibrational stressing. He testified that fatigue “can occur over night”; that the elapsed time between the *921beginning and the end of such a failure might be a matter of minutes, if a slow fracture, or a fraction of a second in the case of a rapid failure. No other witness testified as to these matters.
Mr. Matthaei testified and repeatedly stressed the importance of maintenance and annual inspection of the equipment, including the bolts. He recommended a dye-penetrant testing of the bolts, and of replacement where such tests revealed cracks in the bolts. In regard to the suggested dye test, he testified: “Well, I would like to see it done that way. I don’t think it’s practical, hut I would like to see it done that way.” There is no evidence that this type of test was regularly applied. Neither is there any testimony that this test if performed would have revealed the very small cracks in the holts.
The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants were negligent in their failure to discover the rusted and corroded bolts, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the death of Birmingham. While the record contains evidence that the crane in question was subjected to salt water atmospheric conditions which cause rust and corrosion, there is no evidence that the holts were exposed to atmospheric conditions. Ray Charitat, production foreman for Gulf, testified that the bolts which were recovered at the time of the accident were not rusted or corroded. This was confirmed by photographer David Wheeler, who went to the scene and photographed all the bolts that were recovered and later photographed them again in his studio under lights. He testified that the bolts were very greasy at that time. The only evidence that any of the bolts were rusted or corroded came from the testimony of Mr. Matthaei who saw the bolts just prior to the trial. He testified that you could expect a change that would take place such as rusting of bolts that were left in the same position for a period of eleven years. The evidence showed that the bolts were recovered from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico; others from the crane which had been recovered from the Gulf; and remaining bolts were unaccounted for from the time of the accident until the trial. There was no testimony that any witness saw any of the broken or stripped bolts with rust on them at the time of the accident. There was no direct evidence that the bolts which secured the crane to its base were corroded or rusted at the time of the accident. Neither was there evidence that the bolts were not greased or that rust preventatives had not been applied to them. There was testimony that rust inhibitors and preventatives were periodically applied to the crane and its structure as a matter of routine maintenance; however, there was no testimony that the bolts in question were removed and treated. Conversely, there is no evidence that they were not so removed and treated or treated without removal. As indicated the bolts were not recovered at the time of the accident, but went to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico with the crane and were submerged in the salt waters of the Gulf for some sixty days. When they were retrieved the crane and its component parts were then stored on property near Portland, Texas in a crane salvage where it remained for more than two years before being removed for inspection. There is no evidence of the condition of the bolts at or near the time of the accident.
Mr. Matthaei, who inspected the bolts prior to the trial testified concerning the rust and effect it has on metals, nuts and bolts. He did not attribute the failure of any of the bolts — broken or stripped — to rust or corrosion; nor did he implicate rust and corrosion as a mechanism responsible for the fatigue fracture. There is nothing in this record to indicate that the stripping of a nut from a bolt was caused by rust and corrosion, or that the thread damage or any unbroken bolt which had stripped was due to rust and corrosion.
Proximate cause embraces at least two distinct concepts, both of which must be present:- (1) there must be cause in fact — a cause which produces an event *922without which the event would not have occurred; (2) foreseeability. Baumler v. Hazelwood, 162 Tex. 361, 347 S.W.2d 560 (1961); Kaufman v. Miller, 414 S.W.2d 164 (Tex.1967).
In the present case the only cause in fact of the failure of the bolts was from fatigue. There is no evidence that the bolts which failed were suffering from fatigue at any particular time, that is, a year before the accident, one month before the accident, or one hour before the accident. Nor is there any evidence that an annual inspection would have revealed fatigue in the bolts.
In my opinion the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable under the facts of this case.
The defendant Gulf owned the offshore platform and the crane in question. Under the terms of a written contract with the defendant Flournoy Drilling Company for the performance of a workover, Gulf supplied the crane. Flournoy in turn contracted with Roy Dugger for the services of a crane operator. Hope Birmingham, the deceased, was the operator furnished by Dugger. At the time of the accident in question, the workover had been completed and Flourney was in the process of unloading its rig and other equipment onto a boat for transporting to shore. It is undisputed that during the workover operation for a period of some 114 days, the duty of routine inspection and maintenance of the crane was that of the crane operator. The evidence is undisputed that the deceased performed these functions. He requested the purchase of parts which were needed and made repairs on the crane itself. During this time the decedent was also observed tightening the bolts in the base of the crane with a monkey wrench, and not a torque wrench, with a “cheater pipe” attached to the handle for additional leverage. Thus, the record affirmatively shows that the control of the crane and its repairs and maintenance had been exercised by the decedent for more than sixteen weeks prior to the accident. The bolts which failed and caused the accident had been inspected and tightened by the decedent with a monkey wrench and cheater pipe. Under the circumstances, the doctrine of res ipsa loqui-tur is not applicable. Jones v. Nafco Oil & Gas, Inc., 380 S.W.2d 570 (Tex.1964); Wichita Falls Traction Co. v. Elliott, 125 Tex. 248, 81 S.W.2d 659; Owen v. Brown, 447 S.W.2d 883 (Tex.1969).
I would affirm the judgment of the courts below.
GREENHILL, C. J., and DANIEL, J„ join in this dissent.