Lexplug logoLexplug

Threadgill v. PEABODY COAL COMPANY

Colorado Court of Appeals
526 P.2d 676 (1974)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A trade usage that implies a contractual term allocating the risk of loss will not be enforced to the extent that it purports to relieve a party from liability for its own negligence, as such an application would violate public policy.


Facts:

  • Peabody Coal Company hired Al R. Threadgill as an independent contractor to 'log' test holes drilled by Peabody to locate coal deposits.
  • The parties entered into an oral contract which did not include any express agreement regarding who would bear the risk of loss for Threadgill's equipment.
  • While logging a test hole, a probing device owned by Threadgill and operated by his employees became stuck in the hole.
  • Peabody's employees attempted to recover the probing device but were unsuccessful, resulting in the total loss of the equipment.

Procedural Posture:

  • Al R. Threadgill (plaintiff) sued Peabody Coal Company (defendant) in a state trial court.
  • Threadgill's complaint alleged two claims: negligence in the recovery attempt and breach of an implied contract term based on trade usage.
  • Peabody filed a counterclaim for recovery expenses, alleging negligence by Threadgill's employees.
  • The trial court found that a binding trade usage placed the risk of loss on Peabody, making negligence immaterial.
  • The trial court entered judgment for Threadgill and dismissed Peabody's counterclaim.
  • Peabody Coal Company (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Colorado Court of Appeals.

Locked

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 a trade usage that places the risk of loss of a contractor's equipment on the hiring party apply even if the contractor's own negligence caused the loss?


Opinions:

Majority - Pierce, J.

No. A trade usage that places the risk of loss on one party cannot immunize the other party from the consequences of its own negligence. The evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that a trade usage existed in the drilling industry which places the risk of loss for a prober's equipment on the driller (Peabody) when the contract is silent. To be binding, a usage need only be 'sufficiently general so that the parties could be said to have contracted with reference to it.' However, a trade usage must also be reasonable and not violate public policy. The public policy of Colorado dictates that parties cannot contract away their potential liability for their own negligence, except in very specific circumstances not present here. Therefore, an implied agreement arising from a trade usage cannot relieve a party of liability for its own negligence. The trial court erred in ruling that the trade usage made the issue of negligence irrelevant.



Analysis:

This decision establishes an important limitation on the application of trade usage in contract law. While courts will use industry customs to fill gaps in contracts, this case clarifies that such customs are subordinate to fundamental public policy. It affirms that trade usage cannot be used to implicitly create an exculpatory clause that would relieve a party of liability for its own negligence. This holding preserves the core tort principle of responsibility for one's own fault, preventing industry practice from overriding established legal doctrine.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Threadgill v. PEABODY COAL COMPANY (1974)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"