PIERRE, S.D. (Legal Newsline) - The owners of a South Dakota farm can be sued over an explosion that killed two workers as they attempted to weld a crack in a truck’s diesel fuel tank, the state’s highest court ruled.
In a Sept. 22 decision, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed in part a lower court’s dismissal of the case, ruling a jury must decide if the farm owner’s son was working as an employee of the enterprise when he attempted to fix the fuel tank, and whether a coworker appreciated the risk of the activity.
Chalan Hedman and Troy Hattum were longtime friends who worked on the Hattum family farm and Chalan planned to marry the daughter of the owners, Bob and Beverly Hattum. Chalan and Hattum decided to fix the leaking diesel tank on a Peterbilt truck in 2016 after Chalan refused to haul silage in another truck that lacked air conditioning.
The Hattums later testified they told Chalan and Troy to “leave the truck alone.” But Troy claimed to know how to weld the crack in the tank, and the two men drained it of diesel, dried it out with compressed air and filled it with carbon monoxide from the tailpipe of an ATV to reduce the risk of explosion. As they were welding, there was an explosion and both men were badly burned, dying in the hospital days later.
Hedman’s family sued the farm’s owners for strict liability and negligence. The family argued
Troy Hattum was a supervisor, not a fellow employee, the owners were negligent for failing to supervise the tank welding, and that there was no evidence they had sought to replace the leaking tank. The trial court dismissed the case, however, finding there was no evidence the Hattums had instructed the men to weld the tank and they couldn’t be liable for the obvious danger of doing it.
The South Dakota Supreme Court for the most part agreed with the trial court.
“A bad outcome or evidence of a mistake is not, by itself, proof of negligence,” the court observed, and “we have never held that the duty to provide a safe workplace requires an employer to continuously monitor or supervise its employees.”
The plaintiffs also didn’t provide an expert opinion to support a claim the welding was abnormally dangerous, and thus subject to strict liability. But the high court reversed dismissal on another test of strict liability, which is whether under the “agency theory,” Troy Hattum was an agent of the owners performing an abnormally dangerous task.
“The welding took place with the Hattums’ equipment, during work hours, at the Hattums’ farm, and may have been undertaken, in part, to repair the Hattums’ truck for their benefit,” the court ruled. “On this record, we conclude there is a fact question on whether Troy was acting within the scope of his employment when he welded the diesel tank.”
The court said a trial court also must decide whether Chalan Hedman “knew and appreciated the risk of welding the fuel tank.” Whether welding a diesel fuel tank is abnormally dangerous itself is a question yet to be decided by the courts, the Supreme Court said.