Bob Janicki and Lance Locke recently obtained summary judgment in a personal injury lawsuit on behalf of a client who performed mechanical repairs to a mud pump in operation at an oil drilling well site in Utah. The plaintiff in this action brought suit against the defendant repair company after the plaintiff’s clothing became entangled in the driveline of the pump. The plaintiff alleged the defendant repair company was negligent in not replacing the safety guard over the drive train of the pump once the repair company had finished its repairs. In this instance, the safety guard had already been removed by the plaintiff’s employer before the defendant arrived on site to perform its repairs. The undisputed testimony in this case confirmed that the plaintiff’s employer instructed the defendant to not replace the safety guard over the drive train after the repairs were finished. Instead, the employer’s foreman indicated to the defendant that the employer would replace the safety guard after they had cleaned the oil skid. The defendant filed for summary judgment on the grounds that it did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff to protect the plaintiff from the injuries he sustained as a result of the employer’s decision to operate the pump without first replacing the safety guard over the drive train. In granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the court concluded that no special relationship existed between the plaintiff and the defendant that gave rise to an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the plaintiff, and the defendant did not have a legal duty to replace the safety guard on the pump contrary to the instructions of the plaintiff’s employer which hired the defendant to perform the repairs.