THREADGILL V. PEABODY COAL CO.
526 P.2d 676 (Colo. App. 1974)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Peabody (D) sought review of a judgment holding them liable for
damages for the loss of certain equipment owned by Threadgill (P) lost in the process of
probing test holes drilled by the coal company.
FACTS: P was an independent contractor hired by D to probe the test holes for the purpose
of locating coal deposits. P's employees lowered a probing device to the bottom of each hole
and proceeded to 'log' the hole as the probe was retrieved. The probing device became stuck
in the hole. Employees of D then commenced recovery operations which were unsuccessful. P
sued D for the loss of the probe. The court found that an oral contract for services of did
exist, but that there had been no express agreement, oral or otherwise, upon the placement
of the risk of loss of the probing device. It then held that P had satisfactorily
established 'a certain practice or custom in the drilling industry which places the risk of
probe loss on the driller where, as here, there is no agreement otherwise.' The court ruled
that the negligence was immaterial under the trade practice, and thus, in effect, placed a
duty of strict liability upon D. The court then entered judgment in favor of P. D appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment