Beaudoin v. Texaco, Inc.
653 F. Supp. 512, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1310 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under North Dakota's modified comparative negligence statute, a plaintiff's negligence is compared to the combined negligence of all at-fault parties (the "unit rule"). A plaintiff may recover from any negligent defendant so long as the plaintiff's negligence is not as great as the aggregate negligence of all other tortfeasors, including those who are immune from suit.
Facts:
- Texaco, Inc. hired Wood Wireline to conduct a pressure check on a Texaco oil well in North Dakota.
- Mark Beaudoin, an employee of Wood Wireline, and a co-worker arrived at the unlighted well site before dawn on February 21, 1983, to prepare their equipment.
- The work was required to commence at an hour that necessitated setting up equipment in darkness.
- While Beaudoin was uncoiling wire from a large spool mounted on his rig, the end of the wire struck him in the left eye.
- The injury caused Beaudoin to become legally blind in his left eye.
- A Texaco employee, John Spain, arrived on site to supervise the work only after the incident had already occurred.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark Beaudoin filed a diversity action for damages against Texaco, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.
- Beaudoin alleged negligence; Texaco asserted the affirmative defense of contributory negligence.
- Beaudoin's employer, Wood Wireline, was not a defendant in the action as it was immune from liability under North Dakota's worker's compensation law.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- The jury returned a special verdict finding total damages of $44,057.04 and apportioning negligence as follows: Wood Wireline, 60%; Mark Beaudoin, 30%; and Texaco, Inc., 10%.
- The court was then required to interpret North Dakota's comparative negligence statute to determine the proper judgment to enter based on the jury's verdict.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under North Dakota's comparative negligence statute, does a plaintiff's negligence bar recovery from a defendant whose individual negligence is less than the plaintiff's, if the plaintiff's negligence is less than the combined negligence of all at-fault parties?
Opinions:
Majority - Van Sickle, J.
No. A plaintiff's recovery is not barred against a defendant whose individual negligence is less than the plaintiff's, as long as the plaintiff's negligence is less than the combined negligence of all at-fault parties. In a case of first impression under North Dakota law, the court adopts the 'unit rule' for applying comparative negligence. The court reasoned that while North Dakota's statute was derived from Wisconsin's, which follows the 'Wisconsin rule' (comparing plaintiff's fault to each defendant individually), this precedent is not binding. The court found that the unit rule represents the majority rule and the modern trend, and avoids the 'harsh and unfair results' that even the Wisconsin Supreme Court has acknowledged in its own rule. Further, a North Dakota statutory rule of construction (NDCC § 1-01-35) requires interpreting the singular 'person' in the comparative negligence statute to include the plural, thus supporting the aggregation of defendants' negligence. The court concluded that the North Dakota Supreme Court would learn from the experience of other states and choose the more equitable unit rule. Therefore, Beaudoin's 30% negligence is compared to the combined 70% negligence of Texaco (10%) and the immune employer Wood Wireline (60%), allowing him to recover.
Analysis:
This decision is a significant interpretation of state law by a federal court sitting in diversity. By adopting the 'unit rule,' the court aligned North Dakota with the modern majority of jurisdictions on comparative negligence, making it easier for plaintiffs to recover in multi-tortfeasor cases. The ruling demonstrates a judicial preference for equitable outcomes and a willingness to reject older, harsher legal doctrines, even when there is a historical link to them. The case also starkly illustrates the consequences of joint and several liability, where a minimally at-fault defendant (Texaco at 10%) can be held liable for the entire share of damages attributable to other parties, including an employer shielded by worker's compensation immunity.
