From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tovar v. Amarillo Oil Co.

Supreme Court of Texas
Jul 17, 1985
692 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. 1985)

Summary

holding that a general contractor retained a contractual right of control where the contract's provisions required the independent contractor to use specific safety measures and devices and allowed the general contractor to take possession of the project and suspend operations if the oil company found that the independent contractor was conducting drilling operations in an unsafe manner

Summary of this case from Smith v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.

Opinion

No. C-4001.

June 26, 1985. Rehearing Denied July 17, 1985.

Appeal from the District Court No. 108, Potter County, Nobles, J.

Chambers and Sturgeon, Ben L. Sturgeon and Mark L. Mosley, Amarillo, for petitioners.

Stokes and Fields, Gary W. Barnard, and Gibson, Ochsner and Adkins, Mac W. Hancock III, Amarillo, for respondents.


This is a personal injury case arising from an oil field accident. The trial court, pursuant to a jury verdict, awarded Henry Tovar $320,324.81. The court of appeals, in an unpublished opinion, reversed and rendered judgment that plaintiff take-nothing. Pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.P. 483, without hearing oral argument, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause back to that court for consideration of points not therein addressed.

Henry Tovar was employed by Moran Brothers, Inc., a drilling company. Amarillo Oil Company hired Moran Brothers to drill a well on its lease. The drilling contract between Amarillo Oil and Moran Brothers specifically provided for a blowout preventer. The bid sheet and drilling order specified that the kill line should not be used for a fill line on the blowout preventer. Moran Brothers used the kill line for a fill line, and Amarillo Oil was aware of that deviation. The Amarillo Oil on-site representative had suggested to his superiors the possibility of shutting down operations because of the blowout preventer design. Under the drilling contract, Amarillo Oil had the right to take possession of the well and discontinue drilling in the event of carelessness, inattention, or incompetency on the part of Moran Brothers. Tovar suffered severe injury to his chest, ribs, shoulders, legs and back when pressure which had built up in the hole because of the blowout preventer design caused the bit breaker and drilling mud to spew out of the mouth of the well.

The jury found that Amarillo Oil was negligent in failing to order Moran Brothers to shut down the drilling rig, and that such negligence was a proximate cause of Tovar's injuries. The court of appeals held that Amarillo Oil did not owe Tovar a duty as a matter of law.

In Redinger v. Living, Inc., 689 S.W.2d 415 (Tex. 1985) we adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 414 (1977) which provides:

One who entrusts work to an independent contractor, but who retains the control of any part of the work, is subject to liability for physical harm to others for whose safety the employer owes a duty to exercise reasonable care, which is caused by his failure to exercise his control with reasonable care.

We held that when the general contractor exercises some control over a subcontractor's work, the general contractor may be liable for failure to exercise reasonable care in supervising the subcontractor's activity. The court of appeals decision conflicts with Redinger.

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause to that court for consideration of points not previously addressed by them.


Summaries of

Tovar v. Amarillo Oil Co.

Supreme Court of Texas
Jul 17, 1985
692 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. 1985)

holding that a general contractor retained a contractual right of control where the contract's provisions required the independent contractor to use specific safety measures and devices and allowed the general contractor to take possession of the project and suspend operations if the oil company found that the independent contractor was conducting drilling operations in an unsafe manner

Summary of this case from Smith v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.

holding general contractor liable when it knew of ongoing violation of specific contractual safety provision and failed to exercise contractual right to stop drilling

Summary of this case from Shell Oil Co. v. Khan

holding general contractor liable when it knew of ongoing violation of specific contractual safety provision

Summary of this case from ISLAS v. CENTRAL READY MIX CONC

In Tovar v. Amarillo Oil Co., we upheld the liability of the operator of an oil and gas lease for injury to a drilling company's employee from the driller's misuse of a blowout preventer which the operator had specifically prohibited in the drilling contract and of which the operator was actually aware.

Summary of this case from Lee Lewis Constr. v. Harrison

In Tovar, the premises owner retained a contractual right to suspend its independent contractor's drilling operations "in the event of carelessness, inattention, or incompetency on the part of" that contractor.

Summary of this case from Lee Lewis Constr. v. Harrison

In Tovar, an oil company contractually reserved the right to suspend the drilling operations of its independent contractor "in the event of carelessness, inattention, or incompetency on the part of" the independent contractor.

Summary of this case from Koch Refining Company v. Chapa

In Tovar v. Amarillo Oil Co., 692 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. 1985) (per curiam), we held that an oil company breached a duty of care to a drilling contractor employee by not exercising its contractual right to suspend drilling operations when it became aware that the drilling contractor was violating a specific, critical safety provision in the drilling contract.

Summary of this case from Hoechst-Celanese Corp. v. Mendez

In Tovar, the defendant's on-site representative suggested that the manner of operation posed a danger to the plaintiff and the defendant further had the contractual right to order the work to be performed in a different manner.

Summary of this case from Exxon Corp. v. Quinn

In Tovar, the standard company policy, and the contract between the parties, prohibited the subcontractor from using a kill line for a fill line on an oil well blowout preventer because it was an unsafe design.

Summary of this case from Joeris Gen. Contractors, Ltd. v. Cumpian

In Tovar, the standard company policy, and the contract between the parties, prohibited the subcontractor from using a kill line for a fill line on an oil well blowout preventer because it was an unsafe design.

Summary of this case from Joeris Gen. Contractors, Ltd. v. Cumpian

In Tovar, the supreme court recognized a general contractor has a duty to take contractually authorized corrective measures when a general contractor has actual knowledge that an independent contractor has deviated from an agreed-to safety measure.

Summary of this case from Joeris Gen. Contractors, Ltd. v. Cumpian

In Tovar, the supreme court recognized a general contractor has a duty to take contractually authorized corrective measures when a general contractor has actual knowledge that an independent contractor has deviated from an agreed-to safety measure.

Summary of this case from Joeris Gen. Contractors, Ltd. v. Cumpian

In Tovar v. Amarillo Oil Co., 692 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.1985) (per curiam), the court upheld a verdict finding that an oil company breached a duty of care to a drilling contractor's employee.

Summary of this case from Painter v. Sandridge Energy, Inc.

In Tovar v. Amarillo Oil Co., 692 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. 1985), the contractor had the right under a drilling contract with the subcontractor "to take possession of the well and discontinue drilling in the event of carelessness, inattention, or incompetency on the part of the [subcontractor]."

Summary of this case from Williams v. Olivo
Case details for

Tovar v. Amarillo Oil Co.

Case Details

Full title:Henry TOVAR et al., Petitioners, v. AMARILLO OIL COMPANY et al.…

Court:Supreme Court of Texas

Date published: Jul 17, 1985

Citations

692 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. 1985)

Citing Cases

Joeris Gen. Contractors, Ltd. v. Cumpian

Without further clarification from the Texas Supreme Court, I am unable to take that step. In…

Lee Lewis Constr. v. Harrison

Accordingly, we have never had a case in which we considered what duty the employer of an independent…