قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / Oil refinery was not guilty of damaging the worker during explosion

Oil refinery was not guilty of damaging the worker during explosion



An oil refining company had no duty of care for a worker who was injured in an oil pump explosion.

In Grice v CVR Energy Inc ., A three judge panel of the 10th US Board of Appeal confirmed on Tuesday a court of appeal judgment of CVR Energy Inc. of Sugar Land, Texas, claiming that the company not responsible for workplace safety at the oil refinery.

Benjamin Grice, an employee of Coffeyville, Kansas-based Coffeyville Resources LLC, had worked at an oil refinery when an oil pump exploded, causing him to suffer from severe burns. The explosion killed one of its employees. Investigators found that excessive wear caused the pump's rotating parts to contact and split the pump's seal. It is undeniable in the record that a double mechanical seal would have prevented the explosion.

Mr. Grice received compensation from employees for his injuries and filed a complaint against the employer's parent company according to the theory of liability claims. He claimed that CVR Energy had taken responsibility for the safety of the workplace by entering into a service agreement. A district court granted a summary judgment to the CVR and concluded that the agreement only provided "a shared service distribution mechanism". Mr Grice appealed.

The 1

0th American War Court confirmed the decision. Although Mr Grice argued that the service contract "undoubtedly shows" that CVR Energy undertakes obligations necessary to protect workers from harm, the Court found that the agreement created a system for CVR and its subsidiaries to share the costs of operating the business. . Although the agreement states that the CVR would provide services, including security and environmental councils, the court disagreed with Grice's claims that they were "unambiguous descriptions" and that, without further context, there is little idea of ​​the scope and nature of the management or security council. "

The Appellate Court noted that" there would be no reason to give Security Council to Coffeyville if CVR Energy was ultimately responsible for workplace safety from the ground ", suggesting that the company only maintained a level of control similar to" regular parenting "of subsidiaries .

Consequently, the Court claimed that Grice did not provide evidence that the CVR dealt with the agreement as obliging the parent company to provide comprehensive security services, and that CVR therefore did not accept an obligation to Mr Grice.

Neither the lawyer in the case responded immediately to the request for comment. [19659002]

                    


Source link