PREMISES LIABILITY:
Mr. Smith was working for X Company. X Company is in the business of servicing oil wells. X Company was hired by Y Oil Company to attempt to increase the production of an oil well which Y Company owned. In 2005 X Company had a crew of several employees working at Y Companies oil well. Mr. Smith was the crew supervisor. During their work on the well, X employees used a crane to attempt to pull tubing from the well, which was several thousand feet deep. The tubing became stuck. At the time of the accident X employees were setting up equipment needed to circulate a certain liquid down the well in an attempt to free the stuck tubing. While setting up the equipment to circulate the liquid, the well head was left open. Flammable gas and/or vapor was unexpectedly released from the open well head and ignited by the engine on the crane, which was located in close proximity to the well. An explosion and subsequent fire occurred. Mr. Smith sustained burns over a majority of his body and died shortly thereafter.
In this personal injury action, the plaintiffs are Mr. Smith's wife and children.
PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTION:
The plaintiffs contended that Company Z was hired by Company Y to operate it's well and that Company Z was under a duty to insure that the well was operating according to the terms and conditions of the permits issued by the city where the well was located. The plaintiffs further contended that the decision to circulate the well with a certain liquid was a joint decision between Company Y, Company Z and Company X and that Company Z knew that the well head would need to be open during the circulation proccess, which may allow oil and natural gas to be vented into the atmosphere in violation of the permits issued by the city.
The plaintiffs further claimed that Company Z was negligent by not requiring a dedicated fire watch to test for flammable vapors at the time of the accident. The plaintiffs claimed that Company Y was vicariously responsible for the negligence of Company Z since operation of the well according to the terms and conditions of the permits with the City involved a non-delegable duty.
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The defendants contended that the cause of the accident was the negligence of Mr. Smith and his employer. The defendants also contended that it was the employers decision as experts in oil well maintenance to circulate liquid with the well head open. The defendants further contend that there was no reason to have the well head open while equipment was being set up to be used to circulate the well. Further it was the employers responsibility to employ a fire watch to test for flammable vapors.
SETTLEMENT:
The case settled by mediation for seven figures.
If ever you find yourself in circumstances that are similar to what is illustrated above please contact the legal professionals at the law offices of Lunett & Hegel.
Please fill out the form and someone will be in touch with you shortly.
Lunetto & Hegel
Attorneys at Law
2000 East Fourth Street
Suite 120
Santa Ana, California 92705
PERSONAL INJURY: