Merit Energy Company, LLC v. Blake Horr, 366 P.3d 489

Merit Energy hired independent contractor Basic Energy to clean high‑pressure CO2‑injected oil wells; Basic employee Blake Horr was injured when a stripper rubber blew out during a well cleanout.
Earlier, Merit had supplied a Washington stripper head (with a release valve); Basic later provided a Hercules head (without a release valve) after Merit’s company man declined to pay for the Washington head but approved the Hercules.
During the incident, Merit’s company man (Kalberer) instructed Basic to replace the stripping rubber without personally checking pressure or inspecting equipment; pressure trapped between the BOP and the Hercules head expelled the rubber and injured Horr.
Horr sued Merit under exceptions to the general nonliability rule for employers of independent contractors, alleging (1) direct negligence under Restatement § 414 (retained control) and (2) vicarious liability (respondeat superior).
Jury found Merit 45% at fault, Basic 45%, and Horr 10%; district court entered judgment for Horr (~$2.34M). Merit appealed, challenging jury instructions and denial of judgment as a matter of law.

Issue	Horr's Argument	Merit’s Argument	Held
Whether jury instruction should have required finding Merit retained control over a "hazard" rather than "any part of the work" to impose duty under § 414	Jones allows liability when owner retains control over the hazard that causes harm; jury should be instructed accordingly	Instruction must use the phrase "hazard" as proposed to reflect Jones precisely	Court affirmed the instruction using "retained control over any part of the work" as correct and not misleading; no reversible error
Whether the court erred by refusing Merit’s proposed instruction describing Basic’s specific duty of care	(Plaintiff) argued general duty instructions were sufficient to allow jury to apportion fault	Merit wanted a more specific instruction defining Basic’s duty; argued omission prejudiced it	Court held existing instructions (general duties for Merit, Basic, and Horr) correctly stated law and permitted argument; refusal was not an abuse of discretion
Whether evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to submit duty/§ 414 question to jury (Merit’s JMOL motion)	Horr argued evidence showed Merit retained control over equipment/procedures, creating a jury question on duty	Merit argued no reasonable jury could find it retained control sufficient to create a duty	Court reviewed de novo, viewed evidence favorably to Horr, and concluded reasonable jurors could differ; JMOL denial affirmed

Jones v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 718 P.2d 890 (Wyo. 1986) (adopts Restatement § 414 and holds owner who retains right to direct manner of performance or assumes safety duties owes duty to contractor’s employees)
Stockwell v. Parker Drilling Co., 733 P.2d 1029 (Wyo. 1987) (discusses degree of control relevant to § 414 liability)
Cockburn v. Terra Res., Inc., 794 P.2d 1334 (Wyo. 1990) (distinguishes direct negligence under § 414 from vicarious liability; discusses ‘‘controlling and pervasive’’ control for respondeat superior)
Loredo v. Solvay Am., Inc., 212 P.3d 614 (Wyo. 2009) (describes factual question of retained control for § 414 duty and when it becomes a jury issue)