AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• In 2014, a sand separator used in the fracking process exploded at an oil and gas well site operated by RKI Exploration & Production, LLC, resulting in the death of Roberto Andrade Magdaleno, an employee of Maverick Services, LLC. The plaintiffs, representing the estate of Andrade Magdaleno and his heirs, filed a wrongful death complaint against RKI and other parties, alleging negligence, strict liability, and joint and several liability for a nondelegable duty. Settlements were reached with all defendants except RKI. The case focused on whether RKI was liable for the explosion due to its negligence and the inherently dangerous nature of the flowback process involved in fracking (paras 1-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that RKI was negligent and strictly liable for the wrongful death of Andrade Magdaleno due to the inherently dangerous activity of flowback in fracking. They contended that RKI had control over the work site and the activities leading to the explosion, and that RKI's failure to implement safety measures, including the absence of a pop-off valve on the sand separator, directly caused the fatal incident (paras 6-7, 9, 14, 22-23).
• Defendant-Appellee (RKI Exploration & Production, LLC): Contended that the explosion was not a result of the inherently dangerous nature of flowback but rather the negligence of an independent contractor in failing to equip the sand separator with a necessary safety feature (a pop-off valve). RKI argued that it was not liable for the contractor's negligence and that the flowback process, when conducted properly, did not pose an unusual risk of harm (paras 12-13).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting a directed verdict on the plaintiffs' claim for strict liability based on an inherently dangerous activity.
• Whether the district court erred in excluding evidence of subsequent remedial measures to prove control.
• Whether the district court erred in excluding the deposition testimony of two expert witnesses.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial.
• Whether the district court erred in allowing a jury instruction on an independent intervening cause (paras 8-34).

Disposition

• The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions on all counts, including the directed verdict on strict liability, the exclusion of evidence and expert testimony, the denial of a motion for a new trial, and the jury instruction on an independent intervening cause (para 36).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals held that flowback, as part of the fracking process, did not meet the criteria for an inherently dangerous activity that would impose strict liability on RKI. The court found that the explosion resulted from a specific act of negligence (the absence of a pop-off valve) rather than the nature of flowback itself. The court also ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of subsequent remedial measures, as such evidence was not admissible to prove negligence or control under Rule 11-407 NMRA. The exclusion of deposition testimony of expert witnesses was deemed within the district court's discretion, as it was considered cumulative and potentially prejudicial. The denial of a motion for a new trial was upheld because the appellants failed to demonstrate that the district court's rulings on the aforementioned issues were erroneous. Lastly, the issue of the jury instruction on an independent intervening cause was not preserved for appeal due to the lack of a timely and specific objection by the plaintiffs (paras 9-35).