McGehee v. Southwest Electronic Energy
908 F.3d 619
10th Cir.2018Background
- Forest Oil Corp. and Lantern Drilling leased a ProShot Measurement-While-Drilling (MWD) tool from Teledrift; after use they returned it with mud/debris inside the drill collar.
- Teledrift employees McGehee (foreman) and Heath were tasked with extracting and disassembling the ProShot; during removal McGehee observed several bolts exit the collar and then struck the valve body with a metal rod to dislodge the tool.
- While attempting removal, the ProShot’s internal lithium-thionyl chloride battery exploded, injuring McGehee and Heath.
- Plaintiffs sued Forest and Lantern alleging negligent conduct in allowing bolts/debris into the device; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing no duty to plaintiffs under Oklahoma law.
- The district court granted summary judgment, finding no duty; plaintiffs appealed. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, applying Oklahoma’s ‘‘zone of risk’’ duty analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants owed a duty of care to Teledrift employees | Forest and Lantern’s conduct (allowing debris/bolts downhole) created a foreseeable risk to McGehee/Heath and thus a duty | Defendants routinely returned used, dirty tools to Teledrift for cleaning; foreseeable debris does not create an unreasonably dangerous condition or duty | No duty: foreseeability alone insufficient; risk did not make defendants’ conduct unreasonably dangerous |
| Whether the specific harm (battery explosion) was reasonably foreseeable | The particular risk of a bolt compromising the lithium battery and causing explosion was foreseeable | Defendants could not have reasonably foreseen a battery explosion from bolts; lack of knowledge of bolts cuts against duty | Court declined to base decision solely on lack of specific foreseeability, instead applying broader zone-of-risk analysis and finding no duty |
| Whether testimony about safety practices or expert opinions created a duty | Plaintiffs rely on testimony that operators should prevent debris and expert criticism of failing to use drill screens | Defendants say such testimony relates to best practices or breach, not a legal duty to Teledrift employees | Testimony and expert opinions may bear on breach but do not establish a legal duty under Oklahoma law |
| Applicability of Delbrel-type public-safety cases | Plaintiffs analogize to cases imposing duty where conduct endangered the general public | Defendants argue those cases involved placing the public at risk (e.g., roadway users), unlike returning a used tool to its cleaner | Court distinguished Delbrel/Iglehart/McClure; risk to employees cleaning a commonly returned dirty tool is not equivalent to risks to public motorists, so duty not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Beugler v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 490 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir.) (no duty where injury arose from an ordinary, foreseeable workplace task)
- Lowery v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 160 P.3d 959 (Okla. 2007) (duty exists only where defendant’s conduct foreseeably creates risks that make the conduct unreasonably dangerous)
- Delbrel v. Doenges Bros. Ford, Inc., 913 P.2d 1318 (Okla. 1996) (repairer owes duty to vehicle owner and public where negligent repair creates roadway danger)
- Wofford v. Eastern State Hosp., 795 P.2d 516 (Okla. 1990) (duty depends on relationship and general risks of the common undertaking)
- Iglehart v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Rogers Cty., 60 P.3d 497 (Okla. 2002) (utility owed duty where negligent tree maintenance foreseeably endangered motorists)
- McClure v. Sunshine Furniture, 283 P.3d 323 (Okla. Civ. App.) (duty where improper loading foreseeably endangered the public)
- John v. St. Francis Hosp., Inc., 405 P.3d 681 (Okla.) (elements of negligence under Oklahoma law)