Boyles v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co.
619 P.2d 613, 1980 Okla. LEXIS 346, 1980 OK 163 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The common law doctrine of joint and several liability applies to multiple tortfeasors whose concurrent negligence causes injury to a fault-free plaintiff; the principle of several liability, which requires apportionment of fault, is limited to comparative negligence cases where the plaintiff is also found to be at fault.
Facts:
- Canteen Corporation [Owner] owned a vacant building equipped with a fire suppression system that had an automatic gas shut-off valve.
- Owner hired Accurate Fire Equipment Company [Accurate] to dismantle and move the fire suppression system to a different location.
- Accurate employees, while removing components of the system, cut a gas pipe and left it uncapped.
- Several months later, water pipes in the vacant building froze and burst.
- Owner hired Carder Plumbing Company [Carder] to restore heat to the building.
- A plumber from Carder turned on the gas supply to the building without first checking that all lines were closed.
- Within an hour, gas that had escaped from the uncapped pipe caused an explosion, which leveled the building and injured a passerby [Plaintiff].
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff, a passerby injured in an explosion, brought a negligence suit in a state trial court against four defendants: Canteen Corporation (Owner), Oklahoma Natural Gas Company (ONG), Carder Plumbing Company (Carder), and Accurate Fire Equipment Company (Accurate).
- At trial, the court sustained ONG's demurrer to the plaintiff's evidence, dismissing ONG from the lawsuit.
- The case proceeded to a jury, which returned a verdict against the three remaining defendants: Owner, Carder, and Accurate.
- Accurate did not appeal the jury's verdict.
- Owner and Carder, as appellants, filed separate appeals with the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, which consolidated the cases for its decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of several liability, which requires a jury to apportion fault among multiple tortfeasors, apply in a negligence action where the plaintiff is entirely without fault?
Opinions:
Majority - Opala, Justice
No, the doctrine of several liability does not apply where the plaintiff is without fault; in such cases, multiple negligent tortfeasors are subject to the common law rule of joint and several liability. The court reasoned that the concept of several liability, requiring a jury to apportion fault by percentage, originates from comparative negligence statutes. The purpose of comparative negligence is to allow a plaintiff who is partially at fault to recover a portion of their damages. That rationale is entirely inapplicable to a blameless plaintiff. The court distinguished its prior holding in Laubach v. Morgan, explaining that Laubach's apportionment rule is strictly limited to cases where the plaintiff's own negligence is being compared to that of the defendants. When the plaintiff is innocent, the common law rule of joint and several liability remains in full force, placing the risk of an insolvent co-defendant on the other negligent tortfeasors, not on the fault-free victim.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of comparative negligence principles in Oklahoma, establishing a bright-line rule for cases involving multiple tortfeasors. It preserves the common law doctrine of joint and several liability for the significant category of cases where a plaintiff is completely innocent. By doing so, the court reinforces a policy of fully compensating blameless victims, ensuring they are not left with a partial recovery if one of the responsible parties is judgment-proof. The ruling prevents the extension of several liability beyond its statutory roots in comparative negligence, thereby maintaining a critical distinction in tort law based on the plaintiff's conduct.
