Baker v. Range Resources-Appalachia, LLC

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert J. Colville, United States District Judge

Before the Court are the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by the following Defendants: (1) The Gateway Engineers, Inc. (“Gateway”) (ECF No. 108); (2) Alex E. Paris Contracting Company, Inc. (“Paris”) (ECF No. 112); and (3) Magna Service Agency, Inc. (“Magna”) (ECF No. 115). Each of these three Defendants seeks judgment in its favor with respect to the claims set forth against each Defendant, respectively, in the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19) filed by Plaintiffs Carl E. Baker (“Mr. Baker”) and Martha J. Baker (“Mrs. Baker”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). Each of the Moving Defendants also seeks judgment in its favor with respect to the relevant crossclaims asserted by Defendants Range Resources-Appalachia, LLC

2

(“Range Resources”) (ECF No. 24) and Guardian OFS, LLC (“Guardian”) (ECF No. 35), as well as the respective crossclaims asserted by Magna (ECF No. 51), Gateway (ECF No. 32), and Paris (ECF No. 59), against each of the Defendants in their respective Answers and Crossclaims. The Court has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The Motions at issue have been fully briefed, and are ripe for disposition.

I. Procedural History & Factual Background

Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint on April 22, 2019. At Count I, Mr. Baker asserts claims sounding in negligence against the Defendants. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 12-23, ECF No. 19. Count II asserts claims for loss of consortium on behalf of Mrs. Baker against the Defendants. Id. at ¶¶ 24-25. Each of the Defendants in this action has asserted a crossclaim against each of their Co-Defendants seeking contribution and/or indemnity.^[1] Answers have been filed with respect to all claims and crossclaims. As three Motions for Summary Judgment are presently at issue, the parties have unsurprisingly filed a number of relevant concise statements of material facts (and responses and replies thereto), briefs, and exhibits. The relevant docket entries for each of the pending summary judgment motions are summarized as follows:

With respect to Gateway's Motion for Summary Judgment, the following relevant docket entries have been filed: (1) Gateway's Motion (ECF No. 108) and attached Exhibits (ECF No. 108-1); (2) a Brief in Support (ECF No. 109); (3) a Concise Statement of Material Facts (ECF No. 110); (4) Range Resources' Response to Gateway's Concise Statement (ECF No. 120); (5) Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition (ECF No. 126) to Gateway's Motion; (6) Plaintiffs' Response to Gateway's Concise Statement (ECF No. 127); (7) Plaintiffs' Appendix of Exhibits (ECF No. 132); (8) Gateway's Reply (ECF No. 135) to Plaintiffs' Response to Gateway's Concise Statement; (9)

3

Gateway's Reply Brief (ECF No. 136) to Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition; and (10) Range Resources' Reply (ECF No. 138) to Plaintiffs' Response to Gateway's Concise Statement.

With respect to Paris' Motion for Summary Judgment, the following relevant docket entries have been filed: (1) Paris' Motion (ECF No. 112) and attached Exhibits; (2) a Brief in Support (ECF No. 113); (3) a Concise Statement of Material Facts (ECF No. 114); (4) Guardian's Response to Paris' Concise Statement (ECF No. 118); (5) Range Resources' Response to Paris' Concise Statement (ECF No. 119); (6) Gateway's Response to Paris' Concise Statement (ECF No. 124); (7) Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition (ECF No. 128) to Paris' Motion; (8) Plaintiffs' Response to Paris' Concise Statement (ECF No. 129); (9) Plaintiffs' Appendix of Exhibits (ECF No. 132); (10) Range Resources' Reply (ECF No. 137) to Plaintiffs' Response to Paris' Concise Statement; (11) Paris' Reply (ECF No. 140) to Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition; (12) Paris' Reply (ECF No. 141) to Plaintiffs' Response to Paris' Concise Statement; and (13) Paris' Appendix of Exhibits (ECF No. 142).

With respect to Magna's Motion for Summary Judgment, the following relevant docket entries have been filed: (1) Magna's Motion (ECF No. 115) and attached Exhibits; (2) a Brief in Support (ECF No. 116); (3) a Concise Statement of Material Facts (ECF No. 117); (4) Range Resources' Response to Magna's Concise Statement (ECF No. 121); (5) Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition (ECF No. 130) to Magna's Motion; (6) Plaintiffs' Response to Magna's Concise Statement (ECF No. 131); (7) Plaintiffs' Appendix of Exhibits (ECF No. 132); (8) Guardian's Response to Magna's Concise Statement (ECF No. 133); (9) Guardian's Brief in Opposition (ECF No. 134) to Magna's Motion; and (10) Range Resources' Reply (ECF No. 139) to Plaintiffs' Response to Magna's Concise Statement.

4

The Court has reviewed each of the submissions set forth above. Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are not in dispute:^[2]

The present case arises out of a single vehicle truck accident that occurred on or about April 22, 2017 in Somerset Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania. At all times relevant herein, Range Resources was operating a gas well site known as the Rowland Well Pad (“Rowland Well Pad”). At the time of the accident, the Rowland Well Pad was being used as a staging area where water trucks were stored and tested before eventually transporting fracking water to another well site. The accident at issue occurred on an access road (“Access Road”) that connected the Rowland Well Pad to State Route 136. At the time of the accident, Mr. Baker was operating a loaded water truck for Kenan Advantage Group, Inc., and was driving along the Access Road toward the Rowland Well Pad. As Mr. Baker was driving along the Access Road during the early and still dark hours of the morning of April 22, 2017, Mr. Baker's vehicle left the Access Road and rolled down an adjoining hillside. Plaintiffs assert that Mr. Baker suffered severe injuries as a result of the April 22, 2017 accident.

Range Resources contracted with Gateway for Gateway's involvement, in some manner, in the design of the Access Road.^[3] Range Resources contracted with Paris for the construction of the Access Road. Prior to the April 22, 2017 accident, Range Resources ordered, and United Rentals (North America), Inc. t/d/b/a United Rentals supplied, two light towers for use at the

5

Rowland Well Pad.^[4] Range Resources contracted with Guardian to conduct dip testing of water trucks that arrived at the Rowland Well Pad through the night of April 21-22, 2017. Guardian set up and directed at least one of the onsite lights to provide illumination for its testing. Range Resources contracted Magna to provide escort services at the Rowland Well Pad, which included, at least, directing traffic on the Access Road, signing trucks in and out at the Rowland Well Pad, and communicating with Range to send water and sand trucks to an off-site fracking operation.^[5] On the night in question, Magna directed water truck traffic to and from the Rowland Well Pad via the Access Road.

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert that:

Carl E. Baker was driving on the Access Road leading from State Route 136 to the Rowland Well . . . when he was suddenly blinded by powerful lights directed from the Rowland Well toward the [Access Road]. When Mr. Baker was blinded by the lights, he braked but in the process of bringing the truck to a stop the right front wheel went on to the berm or shoulder of the road which was very soft and the adjacent embankment was very steep, the load shifted, the berm or shoulder gave way and the truck then went over the embankment and rolled down the hill multiple times causing serious severe and permanent injuries to Carl E. Baker

Compl. ¶ 19, ECF No. 19. Plaintiffs aver that each of the Defendants was negligent in failing to provide and maintain a safe environment for Mr. Baker to operate his water truck. Id. at ¶ 20(g).

6

Plaintiffs assert that Range Resources and Guardian were negligent in directing the lights, or allowing the lights to be directed, toward the Access Road in a manner that would negatively impact the vision of drivers using the Access Road. Compl. ¶ 20(a), ECF No. 19. Plaintiffs assert that Range Resources, Magna, and Guardian were negligent in failing to warn Mr. Baker that the lights would be directed in such a manner, and further in failing to correct the direction of the lights after the dangerous condition was brought to their attention by water truck operators and others before Mr. Baker's accident occurred . Id. at ¶¶ 20(b)-(c). Plaintiffs assert that Magna was also negligent because it assumed a duty to provide and maintain a safe environment for the water truck drivers who were involved in the staging operation at the Rowland Well Pad, and because it failed in the performance of that duty. Id. at ¶ 20(e). Plaintiffs further assert that Guardian undertook a duty to properly direct the lights, and that it failed in that duty. Id. at 20(f).

Plaintiffs aver that Range Resources, Gateway, and Paris negligently constructed the Access Road in that they allowed the berm or shoulder of the road to be unduly narrow and to give way when Mr. Baker's loaded water truck needed to stop on the road with a wheel on the berm or shoulder. Compl. ¶ 20(h), ECF No. 19. Plaintiffs further assert that Range Resources, Gateway, and Paris were negligent in failing to design and construct the Access Road: (1) with elevated berms, barriers, guardrails, or other protection for the water trucks, id. at ¶ 20(i); (2) with flexible post style or post mounted delineators or other types of signs or reflective markers to identify the edges of the Access Road for vehicle...