This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P was an oil field roustabout-pumper for Amoco Oil Company. D provided electrical service to Amoco and did so by an uninsulated electrical line that served wells in Amoco’s oil field. To remove paraffin from its wells, Amoco used a rig mounted on a truck. A mast was attached to the rear of the truck with hinges. In the collapsed position, the other end was carried in a 'headache rack' over the front of the truck. To service a well, the truck was backed to within about 13.5 feet of the well, where the mast was raised and extended so as to describe a 60-degree angle with the ground, placing the mast tip about 30.3 feet high over the well crown. The rig was stabilized by guy wires and used to lower a device known as a 'lubricator' onto the crown of the well in order to service the well. P and another Amoco employee found it necessary to dismantle the lubricator to make a repair. In order to get off the main road and find a dry place to repair the rig, they drove the truck into that well site and parked. The truck was headed toward the well with its front end approximately 3-4 feet from the well and its rear end approximately 15-16 feet from the point at which the high power line crossed the access road. It was necessary to raise the mast off the truck and lower the lubricator to the ground to make the repairs. P raised the mast tip up, over the truck, and back toward the power line. P had noticed the distribution line at this location on previous occasions but failed to pay attention to it on the day of the accident. P last saw the mast when it was at a 45-degree angle in front of the truck. The mast either touched the power line or came close enough for electrical arcing to occur. This released 14,400 volts of electricity from the power line and through the mast, the truck, and P's body. Both P's legs were amputated just below the knees. P had severe burns over 25% of his body. At the well site, D had placed its line completely across the access road, only 40.5 feet from the well and only 25.7 feet above ground. At the time of the trial, P had been hospitalized 10 times for 11 different surgical procedures. P sued D. The case was tried before a jury. It found that D's conduct did not fall below the reasonable standard of care. P appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.