Public Service Co. of Oklahoma v. Fort Worth Grain Exchange
This text of 1998 OK 89 (Public Service Co. of Oklahoma v. Fort Worth Grain Exchange) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
¶ 1 This is an indemnity action. The underlying action resulted from injuries sustained by an employee of Appellant, Fort Worth Grain Exchange (Employer). The employee suffered electrical shock while standing on a railway car and using a metal probe to sample grain. The probe touched a high-voltage electric line owned by Appellee, Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO).
¶2 The employee sued PSO, the manufacturer of the grain probe, and the owners of the grain elevator where the accident occurred. PSO brought Employer into the action as a third-party defendant alleging that Employer was required to indemnify PSO for any liability PSO incurred from the accident. The underlying action was dismissed when the employee reached settlements with the defendants. PSO paid the injured worker $610,000.00. In a separate proceeding, Employer paid workers’ compensation benefits to its injured employee. PSO then brought this indemnity action against Employer to recover the $610,000.00 paid to the injured worker.
¶ 3 The trial court entered summary judgment for PSO, despite Employer’s demands for a jury trial to determine the issues of contributory negligence and assumption of 'the risk. Judgment was entered for the entire amount PSO paid to Employer’s injured employee.
¶ 4 Employer claims the trial court erred by granting summary judgment while issues of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk remained unresolved. PSO asserts the trial court’s judgment was required under the liability imposed by the “six foot” rule found at title 63, section 981, of the Oklahoma statutes and the indemnity provision found at section 984.
¶ 5 Section 981 prohibits anyone from doing anything which might place a person or an object within six feet of any electric line or conductor.1 Section 984 provides that one who violates the “six foot” rule of section 981 “shall be liable to the owner or operator of such high voltage line or conductor ... for all liability incurred by such owner or operator as a result of any such accidental contact.” 2
¶ 6 Employer argues that because it has paid workers’ compensation benefits to its injured worker, the exclusive remedy provisions3 of the Workers’ Compensation Act make it immune to any other liability. The identical argument, however, was rejected in Travelers Insurance Co. v. L.V. French Truck Service, 770 P.2d 651 (Okla.1988). [325]*325There, this Court specifically held that the immunity afforded an employer by the Workers’ Compensation Act does not extend to liability imposed by section 984. Id. at 554. See also Ring v. Public Serv. Co., 775 P.2d 1356, 1358 (Okla.1989).
¶ 7 Employer then relies on section 987 of title 63 which states that the “six foot” rule does not apply to “the operation or maintenance of any equipment traveling or moving upon feed rails of any railroad company subject to the Interstate Commerce Commission and/or to the Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma.” Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 987(c) (1991). However, the injured worker was sampling grain that merely happened to be in a railway car. His activities had nothing to do with the operation or maintenance of railroad equipment. Employer’s reliance on section 987 is misplaced.
¶ 8 Finally, Employer invokes article 23, section 6, of the Oklahoma Constitution which provides that “[t]he defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of the risk shall, in all cases ... whatsoever, be a question of fact and shall at all times, be left to the jury.” It argues that the trial court’s summary judgment against it was therefore error.
¶ 9 Employer is correct in asserting that it has been deprived of its opportunity to have a jury decide the issue of the injured worker’s part in the electrocution. This Court has “expressly noted that the defense of contributory negligence is available to a defendant in a [section] 984 indemnity claim ... against the employer.” Ring, 775 P.2d at 1358 (citing Travelers, 770 P.2d at 556 n. 18). On remand the trial court is directed to submit issues of contributory negligence or assumption of the risk to a jury as questions of fact.
TRIAL COURT REVERSED; CAUSE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1998 OK 89, 988 P.2d 323, 69 O.B.A.J. 3106, 1998 Okla. LEXIS 97, 1998 WL 668711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/public-service-co-of-oklahoma-v-fort-worth-grain-exchange-okla-1998.