A widow’s challenge of a Coal County District Judge’s decision in the Dec.. 18, 2014 natural gas rig fire and explosion that killed three men lost her appeal to the Oklahoma State Court of Civil Appeals.
In a ruling by Judges Jane P. Wiseman, John F. Fische and Gregory C. Blackwell, the judges upheld a summary judgment by Coal County District Judge Paula Inge in the suit brought by Bobbie Sue Pittman.
Pittman’s husband, Mark Allen Pittman, Jr. died in the fire along with Gary Keenen, 26, of Ada and Kelsey Bellah, 27, of Tulsa. She eventually filed suit, blaming rig operator Pablo Energy of Amarillo, Texas, David D. Drilling Corp., Verdugo Energy, LLC, Verdugo-Pablo Energy LLC, Evolution Guidance Systems, Inc, Cashing Crews Inc., 3D Well Service, Inc., DIADEM Enterprises, Horizon Well Logging, LLC, and Environmental Recovery Solutions & Rental LLC.
OSHA immediately investigated following the incident and determined an open-flame heater on the floor of the rig, used by workers to keep warm on a cold December morning, likely sparked the fire.
“Three young men died because Dan D Drilling again allowed the use of an open-flame heater. The heater probably started the fire. The company knew this was hazardous but chose to ignore the hazard,” said David Bates, OSHA’s area director in Oklahoma City at the time.
Pittman’s lawsuit argued the deaths fell outside of the remedy provided by Oklahoma’s Workers Compensation Law. The Appeals Court determined it was left to determine whether the actions of the defendants showed willful intent to cause harm. It concluded the case falls under workers’ compensation law and employee Matt Thurman, who failed to take certain preventive actions that led to the open flame heater igniting gases released from the mud pump, was negligent.
“We find no indication that Thurman, although negligent, acted intentionally or was otherwise acting outside his scope of employment when he failed to shut off the mud pump or decided to use the roatary table to assist in breaking the condition,” ruled the three judges, adding, “Unless his acts were intentional, Thurman has no personal liability to PIttman for his acts, and we find no indicatiaon that Thurman acted intentionally.”
In summary, the judges concluded, “While its actions might be properly described as reckless, we cannot find on this record that the defendant committed an intentional tort. We thus affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.”
They also found that based on the arguments presented in the case, they found no “constitutional infirmity” in the challenged statutues.