Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

negligencetrialverdict

negligencetrialverdictmotionpost-trial motion

Related Cases

Owen v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 698 F.2d 236, 12 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 618

Facts

David Owen was hired to clear a forty-acre tract of land owned by the Fraziers, who had previously allowed Kerr-McGee to install a gas pipeline across their property. The pipeline was supposed to be buried at least thirty-six inches deep, but evidence suggested it was only eighteen inches below the surface. Owen was not informed about the pipeline's presence and assumed the signs he saw indicated a straight path, leading him to dig without further investigation. When he struck the pipeline, an explosion occurred, causing him serious injuries.

David Owen was the owner-operator of a bulldozer. In 1973, he cleared a forty-acre tract of woodland owned by James and Elton Frazier.

Issue

Did the jury err in finding Kerr-McGee negligent and in determining that Owen was not contributorily negligent?

Kerr-McGee argues that the jury's findings are clearly erroneous.

Rule

Under Louisiana law, the owner and operator of a facility must exercise reasonable care for the safety of persons on or around their property, and the standard of care is determined by the nature of the facility and the dangers it presents.

Under Louisiana law, the owner and operator of a facility must exercise reasonable care for the safety of persons on or around his property.

Analysis

The court found that there was substantial evidence supporting the jury's conclusion that Kerr-McGee was negligent. The jury could reasonably determine that Kerr-McGee failed to adequately mark the pipeline's location and that the pipeline was not buried to the required depth. Additionally, the jury found that Owen's assumption about the pipeline's location was reasonable given the circumstances, and thus he was not contributorily negligent.

There is ample evidence in the record from which the jury could have concluded that Kerr-McGee was negligent.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the jury's verdict, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the findings of negligence against Kerr-McGee and that the trial court's rulings were appropriate.

We conclude that sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict and the rulings of the trial court on Kerr-McGee's post-trial motions.

Who won?

David Owen prevailed in the case because the jury found that Kerr-McGee's negligence was the legal cause of the accident and that Owen was not contributorily negligent.

The jury concluded that Kerr-McGee was negligent, and that its negligence was the legal cause of the accident.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Randolph v. Collectramatic, Inc., 590 F.2d 844, 3 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1058

Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 72 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 964, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 17,725

Johnson v. Elk Lake School Dist., 283 F.3d 138, 162 Ed. Law Rep. 679, 58 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 38

Lloyd v. American Export Lines, Inc., 580 F.2d 1179, 47 A.L.R. Fed. 874, 1979 A.M.C. 49, 3 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 193

Blythe v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 586 So.2d 861, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,956