HOUSTON - The 14th Court of Appeals has concluded a trial court erred by not dismissing ExxonMobil from a pipeline injury lawsuit.
Court records show plaintiff Dustin Palmer was injured while working at a gas pipeline facility in Oklahoma that was maintained by defendant XTO Energy, a subsidiary of Exxon.
On the day Palmer was injured, XTO was overseeing the reconfiguration of pipelines, during which a cutting torch was used to cut away a section of pipe so that it could be removed and replaced. When the cutting torch breached the interior wall of the pipe, liquid hydrocarbons and condensate within the pipe ignited and forcefully exited the pipe through open flanges. Two welders and Palmer were “engulfed in flames and severely injured.”
According to the 14th Court’s July 9 opinion, Palmer and his wife sued Exxon and XTO and later amended their petition, dropping all claims against Exxon except a cause of action for “Negligent Corporate Safety Oversight.”
Court records show Exxon filed a rule 91a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs’ cause of action lacked a basis in law because it was not recognized as a valid claim under either Texas or Oklahoma law.
Exxon also argued that it was not liable for the acts of its subsidiary XTO. The trial court denied Exxon’s motion.
On appeal, the company asserts that mandamus relief should be issued to correct the trial court’s failure to dismiss it from the case under Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, which is for baseless claims.
Exxon asserts that the trial court abused its discretion because a claim of “negligent corporate safety oversight” is not a recognized cause of action; and because the plaintiffs’ claim for negligent undertaking has no basis in law because their pleadings complain of omissions, not affirmative undertakings.
“Taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, Exxon Mobil’s alleged failure to enforce or mandate its safety policies does not implicate a duty under the negligent undertaking claim,” the opinion states.
“Because the facts alleged and the inferences reasonably drawn from them would not, if proved, entitle Plaintiffs to the relief they seek, the cause of action they allege has no basis in law.”
Appeals case No. 14-26-00400-CV
