Van Patten v. Gipson

Citations: 2011 WY 98; 253 P.3d 505; 2011 Wyo. LEXIS 99; 2011 WL 2496675Docket: S-10-0202

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court; June 23, 2011; Wyoming; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Michael Van Patten, employed as an entry-level floorman by H. P International Drilling Company, sustained injuries while working on a drilling rig and subsequently filed a lawsuit against co-employees Corby Gipson, John Sharisky, and Mike Wixom, alleging their willful and wanton misconduct caused his injuries. The district court determined that the co-employees' actions did not constitute willful and wanton misconduct and granted their motion for summary judgment. Van Patten appealed, asserting there were genuine issues of material fact that should have prevented summary judgment.

The Supreme Court of Wyoming, presided over by Chief Justice Kite, affirmed the district court's decision. The court restated Van Patten's appeal issue as whether the district court erred in concluding that undisputed material facts showed the co-employees' conduct was not willful and wanton. The co-employees raised three related issues: the correctness of the district court's determination regarding their conduct, the implications of their violations of company policies, and whether their individual acts could be aggregated to establish willful and wanton misconduct collectively.

The facts revealed that on May 5, 2007, Van Patten was instructed to use a manrider to perform work on the derrick, but the tugger line necessary for the operation had been improperly secured by a previous crew. The crew decided to raise Van Patten in the manrider to release the line without having completed a necessary job safety analysis for this specific task. This lack of proper safety protocols was central to the allegations but was deemed insufficient by the court to establish willful and wanton misconduct.

Mr. Wixom operated a hoist to lift Mr. Van Patten beneath a derrickboard but lost sight of him, prompting him to request assistance from Mr. Sharisky. As Mr. Van Patten attempted to open the storm gate, Mr. Sharisky believed he saw a signal for lifting and instructed Mr. Wixom to hoist him. During this, Mr. Van Patten was pulled into the derrickboard, resulting in a compression fracture of his thoracic spine. Following the incident, Mr. Gipson completed a personnel hoisting checklist, but H. P's investigation found that the crew violated safety procedures by allowing the lift without prior checklist completion. Consequently, Mr. Gipson's pay was docked, though no action was taken against other crew members.

Mr. Van Patten filed a complaint claiming his co-employees acted recklessly, citing failures to perform a job safety analysis, improper instructions, and unsafe practices. The co-employees responded and moved for summary judgment, asserting there were no genuine material facts indicating willful misconduct. The district court granted this motion after a hearing. Mr. Van Patten subsequently appealed.

In reviewing the summary judgment, the court follows a de novo standard, assessing the same record and applying identical standards as the district court. Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issues of material fact exist. Under the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act, rights for injured employees are exclusive unless co-employees intentionally cause harm. The court equates "intentional acts" with "willful and wanton misconduct," necessitating that Mr. Van Patten provide evidence of the co-employees' knowledge of danger and their intentional disregard for it to survive the motion for summary judgment.

In Bertagnolli, evidence revealed significant factual disputes preventing summary judgment. Mr. Bertagnolli, an employee at a trona mine, was directed by his supervisor to work in the shuttle belt area while it was operational. He expressed safety concerns and requested that the belt be locked out, but was threatened with termination if he refused. Fearing for his job, he commenced work, leading to an accident where his foot was severely injured as a rail car moved towards him. The court reversed the summary judgment, finding genuine issues regarding the supervisors' awareness of the dangers and their disregard for safety protocols.

In Hannifan v. American Nat'l Bank of Cheyenne, the Bertagnolli standard was similarly applied to support a jury's finding of willful and wanton misconduct by supervisors. Leslie Butts suffered a life-altering injury when a rock fell on the machinery he was operating in a pit deemed "scary" by an official report. Evidence showed that supervisors ignored warnings about dangerous conditions, including prior incidents and employee concerns, and failed to maintain safety measures such as catch benches. Their decision not to close the area despite known risks contributed to the jury's verdict against them.

In Loredo v. Solvay America, Inc., the Wyoming Supreme Court upheld a district court's summary judgment in favor of a co-employee supervisor, concluding there were no disputed facts regarding willful and wanton conduct leading to Mr. Loredo's injury. Mr. Loredo, a miner, suffered quadriplegia after a rock slab fell on him while he attempted to free a stuck bolter. He had previously raised concerns about the defective equipment to his supervisor, who advised him to continue using it until repairs could be made. The court found that the supervisor's actions complied with safety protocols and did not demonstrate intentional disregard for Loredo's safety.

In Formisano v. Gaston, the court affirmed summary judgment for a co-employee after Mr. Gaston, while driving home late at night, fell asleep at the wheel, causing an accident. While Gaston had violated company policy by driving when fatigued, the court ruled that his actions did not meet the threshold for intentional harm under the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act, as there was no evidence he acted with the intent to cause injury.

In the current case involving Mr. Van Patten, he arrived at the rig and attended a safety meeting where the rig manager instructed the crew to wash the derrick, but did not provide specific instructions on how to do so. After the meeting, Van Patten was directed to start washing the derrick, using a pressure washer he was familiar with. He was then attached to a tugger line by Mr. Wixom while preparing to wash the rig, highlighting the standard equipment and procedures in use.

Mr. Van Patten testified that after being connected for work, Mr. Gipson signaled Mr. Wixom to commence washing near the draw works. To do this, they needed to detach the tugger line from the storm gate, which had been secured by a previous crew. Mr. Van Patten, lacking prior experience in the derrickboard area and unfamiliar with storm gate operations, inquired about conducting a second job safety analysis and obtaining a manrider permit. However, he was informed by Mr. Sharisky and Mr. Wixom that the rig was inactive, their priority was to clean the rig, and they would complete any necessary forms later. Feeling assured by their confidence, Mr. Van Patten proceeded without expressing safety concerns.

He then left the pressure washer on the rig floor, and Mr. Wixom unhooked his safety harness to hoist him up the tugger line to open the storm gate. Upon reaching his maximum height under the derrickboard, Mr. Van Patten signaled for Mr. Wixom to stop but was unable to open the storm gate. He was subsequently raised again, resulting in his head hitting the derrickboard and knocking off his hard hat, which led to his body being crushed against the derrickboard until he yelled for the hoist to stop. After being lowered, he asked about the incident, with Mr. Sharisky mistakenly believing Mr. Van Patten had signaled to be raised.

Mr. Gipson, witnessing the events from the driller's cabin, did not see the impact but noted Mr. Sharisky's reaction. Mr. Sharisky testified that he was in the driller's cabin when he asked Mr. Wixom for assistance at the hoist and later saw Mr. Van Patten near the derrickboard. He instructed Mr. Wixom to halt the hoist after observing Mr. Van Patten's actions and saw him signal to be raised. Mr. Wixom corroborated Mr. Sharisky's account but believed Mr. Sharisky had participated in the initial discussion about the manrider usage before returning to assist at the hoist. Both men witnessed the hard hat fall and instructed Mr. Wixom to lower Mr. Van Patten.

Mr. Van Patten stated he did not believe his coworkers intentionally caused his injury while he was raised into the derrickboard via the manrider. He noted a lack of proper planning by Mr. Gipson, Mr. Sharisky, and Mr. Wixom, who failed to complete necessary forms before the operation due to time constraints. Mr. Gipson, as the driller, indicated he thought using the manrider was the safest method available and was unaware that he violated company policy by not using a safer alternative, such as the derrick ladder. He acknowledged that job safety analyses and checklists were required prior to starting work and recognized the policy prohibiting the use of the manrider unless no less hazardous methods were available.

Mr. Sharisky expressed concerns about Mr. Van Patten's ability to release the tugger line while in the manrider but did not halt the operation, believing Mr. Van Patten was effectively performing the task. He stated that Mr. Van Patten could have signaled to be brought down if he felt unsafe and admitted that he was responsible for completing the pre-job checklist, which would have included inspecting the tugger line's position. Mr. Wixom, although lacking supervisory authority, had previously operated the tugger line in a manrider and did not recall any safety concerns raised during the incident. He suggested that if any concerns had been voiced, an alternative method would have been sought, and noted that safety analyses were often discussed informally before tasks were begun.

H. P acknowledged the absence of a written job safety analysis and pre-job checklist for personnel hoisting when the operation was altered from using the manrider for pressure washing to hoisting Mr. Van Patten for opening the storm gate. H. P indicated that Mr. Gipson admitted his failure to complete the checklist was due to poor planning. Following the incident, H. P highlighted several lessons learned, including the prohibition of using the rig floor hoist for transportation to stationary areas, the need to use ladders or stairs instead, and the requirement for Rig Manager approval for non-routine manriding operations, such as opening a storm gate. The report emphasized assessing hazards when job scopes change.

The court concluded that no genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the claim of willful and wanton misconduct by co-employees, as there was no evidence they intentionally harmed Mr. Van Patten or were aware of the dangers associated with the manrider. Mr. Van Patten stated he had no evidence to suggest intentional harm, while Mr. Gipson believed using the manrider was safe and routine, unaware it violated company policy. Other co-employees, including Mr. Sharisky and Mr. Wixom, affirmed they would have halted the operation if they perceived it as unsafe. The court found this evidence insufficient to demonstrate willful misconduct, contrasting it with past cases where clear warnings and safety concerns were present, indicating that the use of the manrider was a common practice among workers.

Mr. Van Patten contends that his co-employees acted willfully and wantonly, relying on H. P's written policies and statements from upper management who were not involved in the incident. However, the testimonies from those present on site indicate that these policies and statements do not create a genuine dispute regarding whether the co-employees were aware of the dangers and intentionally ignored them. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the co-employees.

Conflicting testimonies arose about when the crew recognized that the tugger line was behind the storm gate and needed to be released. An H. P memorandum mentioned that a rig manager informed the crew of the need for someone to go up the derrick ladder during a meeting, yet no crew member, including Mr. Van Patten, recalled this statement. Mr. Van Patten claimed that a decision by Mr. Gipson shifted the operation's scope from merely lifting him to wash the derrick to also lifting him to free the tugger line, asserting that he was only lifted once, at which point he was injured. Conversely, Mr. Wixom testified that he assisted Mr. Van Patten into the manrider, raised him, and subsequently discussed the need to release the tugger line. Other witnesses confirmed seeing Mr. Van Patten ascend and descend before his injury. Despite the conflicting evidence regarding the crew's awareness of the tugger line situation, it did not influence the determination of whether there was any factual basis for Mr. Van Patten's claim of willful and wanton conduct by the co-employees.

Additionally, Mr. Van Patten originally named several co-employees in his complaint, but they were dismissed by stipulation after discovery. It remains unclear what Mr. Van Patten referred to as a "manrider permit," but it is presumed to relate to a personnel hoisting pre-job checklist.