## Facts

- Texaco, Inc. owned an oil well near Keene, North Dakota, and hired Wood Wireline to perform a pressure gradient check.
- Mark Chris Beaudoin, a Wood Wireline employee, arrived at the site before dawn to set up equipment on an unlighted location.
- While uncoiling wire from a large spool on the wireline rig, Beaudoin was struck in the left eye by the end of the wire and became legally blind in that eye.
- Beaudoin sued Texaco in negligence, alleging Texaco required work to begin in darkness, failed to provide lighting, and failed to supervise.
- Texaco denied negligence and asserted Beaudoin’s careless handling of the wire caused the injury.
- Wood Wireline was not a defendant because it was immune from tort liability under North Dakota workers’ compensation law.

## Issues

1. Under North Dakota’s comparative negligence statute, must the plaintiff’s percentage of fault be compared only to the negligence of the defendant against whom recovery is sought, or to the combined negligence of all responsible actors including an immune, nonparty employer?
2. If the plaintiff’s fault exceeds the only defendant’s fault, does the comparative negligence bar require judgment for the defendant even though the jury attributed some negligence to the defendant?

## Decision

- The jury found total damages of $44,057.04 and apportioned fault: 60% Wood Wireline, 30% Beaudoin, and 10% Texaco.
- The court held the statute required comparing Beaudoin’s negligence to Texaco’s negligence alone, not to Texaco plus the immune employer.
- Because Beaudoin’s negligence (30%) was greater than Texaco’s (10%), the statute barred recovery against Texaco.
- The court entered judgment for Texaco, denying Beaudoin any recovery.

## Legal Principles

- Under N.D. Cent. Code § 9-10-07 (as applied), a plaintiff may recover only if the plaintiff’s negligence is less than the negligence of “the person against whom recovery is sought.”
- When an employer is immune under workers’ compensation, the employer’s fault cannot be used to satisfy the statute’s threshold comparison against the named defendant.
- The “unit rule” (comparing plaintiff’s fault to the aggregate fault of all tortfeasors) does not apply where a principal tortfeasor is a nonparty immune employer, because the statute’s threshold comparison is tied to the sued defendant.
- Workers’ compensation immunity prevents shifting an immune employer’s share of fault to a remaining defendant through comparative-fault comparison mechanics.

## Conclusion

The court applied the comparative negligence threshold by comparing the plaintiff’s fault only to the sued defendant’s fault, and held that the plaintiff’s greater share of negligence barred any recovery against the defendant even though the jury assigned the majority of fault to the plaintiff’s immune employer.


Beaudoin v. Texaco, Inc., 653 F. Supp. 512 (D.N.D. 1987)