CJ-2026-00012 - ADAM MACKEY v. OVINTIV SERVICES, INC., OVINTIV USA, INC., and OVINTIV MARKETING INC.

What's This Case About?

Let’s cut straight to the part that makes your jaw drop: a man was blown up while doing his job at an oil well site in rural Oklahoma, and now he’s suing a trio of corporate entities with names so similar they sound like a law firm run by clones. This isn’t Jurassic Park—it’s Kingfisher County, 2024, where Adam Mackey went to work one day and left in an ambulance, allegedly because someone forgot to treat a high-pressure oil well like the literal powder keg it is.

Adam Mackey, an Oklahoma-based oil field worker, wasn’t out here chasing drama—he was just trying to do his job. According to the court filing, he was on-site at the Stangl 36-16-918H well location, a site allegedly owned or operated by Ovintiv, a major energy player with fingers in oil pies across the country. Ovintiv isn’t some mom-and-pop gas station chain; we’re talking about a multinational energy company that pulls in billions. For Mackey, it was just another Tuesday of hard hats, hydraulic lines, and high-stakes labor. But then—boom. An explosion. A fire. And suddenly, “just another day at the office” turned into “life-altering trauma.”

The details in the petition are sparse on the exact how of the blast—no slow-motion footage, no dramatic reenactment of a spark meeting a gas leak—but the implications are loud and clear: something went very wrong. Mackey claims he was following orders, doing what he was told, when the explosion ripped through the site. He doesn’t say whether alarms were blaring or if anyone yelled “run,” but he does say he suffered “severe injuries,” racked up “substantial medical expenses,” and is now dealing with pain, disfigurement, disability, and all the fun financial fallout that comes with being unable to work in one of the most physically demanding jobs on Earth. And he’s pointing the finger squarely at Ovintiv—the parent company, the operator, the big dog with the deep pockets.

So why is this in court instead of settled with a handshake and a check? Because Mackey isn’t just asking for reimbursement. He’s making two bold legal arguments, dressed up in legalese but simple at their core. First: negligence. That’s lawyer-speak for “you had a duty to keep me safe, and you blew it—literally.” He claims Ovintiv failed to provide proper safety measures, adequate training, supervision, or even basic warnings about hidden dangers. He argues they didn’t follow industry standards or state laws designed to protect workers. And crucially, he says these weren’t just slip-ups—they were part of a broader pattern of cutting corners, ignoring risks, and treating safety like an afterthought. The kicker? He says these duties can’t be passed off to a subcontractor or outsourced to some third party. If you’re in charge, you’re on the hook.

Second claim: ultrahazardous activity. Now, that sounds like a WWE match, but in court, it means “you were doing something so inherently dangerous that you’re automatically liable if it goes wrong—even if you didn’t mean for it to.” Think dynamite, toxic chemicals, or in this case, high-pressure oil and gas operations. Mackey is arguing that drilling and maintaining oil wells isn’t just risky—it’s abnormally dangerous, the kind of activity where one mistake can level a worksite. And if you’re running that kind of operation, the law says you better contain the risk. If you don’t, and someone gets hurt? You pay. No excuses. No “oops, my bad.” Just liability, full stop.

Now, let’s talk money—because $150,000 is not chump change, but in the world of oil field explosions, it’s not exactly king’s ransom either. Mackey is seeking $75,000 in actual damages—that’s for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, all the real costs of being blown up. Then there’s another $75,000 in punitive damages, which aren’t about covering costs—they’re about sending a message. “You messed up,” punitive damages say, “and we want you to feel it.” In the context of a multinational energy company, $150,000 might not even cover the legal team’s coffee budget for a quarter. But symbolically? It’s a middle finger wrapped in legal paper. It says: We see what happened. We know you could’ve prevented it. And we’re not letting you walk away like nothing went wrong.

And here’s the spicy cherry on top: Mackey’s demanding a jury trial. That means he doesn’t want some behind-closed-doors settlement. He wants twelve of his peers to hear this story, look at the facts, and decide whether Ovintiv played fast and loose with a man’s life. He wants accountability, not just a check.

Now, let’s be real: we don’t have Ovintiv’s side of the story. The filing is one-sided, as petitions usually are—this is Mackey’s version, painted in the strongest possible light. Maybe there was a contractor involved. Maybe safety protocols were in place. Maybe the explosion was a freak accident no one could’ve predicted. We don’t know. And until the defense files their response, we’re stuck with the drama of the allegations.

But here’s what’s absurd: that in 2024, in one of the richest industries on the planet, a worker still has to sue just to get basic safety enforced. Oil and gas is inherently dangerous. We get it. But that’s exactly why rules exist. That’s why training matters. That’s why companies hire safety officers and write emergency protocols. And yet, here we are—again—with a man injured, a lawsuit filed, and a corporate giant named after a typo (Ovintiv? Really?) being accused of treating human lives like line items on a spreadsheet.

We’re rooting for transparency. We’re rooting for the truth to come out. And if it turns out Ovintiv skipped safety checks like a teenager skipping gym class, then yeah—we’re rooting for that jury to hand them a verdict so loud it echoes all the way to the boardroom. Because no one should have to risk becoming a human fireball just to pay the electric bill.

Case Overview

$150,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

OKLAHOMA

Filing Attorney

MAURICE G. WOODS, II

MAURICE WOODS, II PLLC

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

$75,000 Punitive

Plaintiffs

ADAM MACKEY individual
Rep: MAURICE G. WOODS, II

Defendants

OVINTIV SERVICES, INC., OVINTIV USA, INC., and OVINTIV MARKETING INC. business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	NEGLIGENCE
2	ULTRAHAZARDOUS ACTIVITY

Petition Text

1,083 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF KINGFISHER COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA ADAM MACKEY, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) OVINTIV SERVICES, INC., OVINTIV USA, INC., and OVINTIV MARKETING INC., ) Defendants. PETITION COME NOW the Plaintiff, Adam Mackey, by and through his attorneys, Maurice Woods, II PLLC, and state as follows: Defendants, Ovintiv Services, Inc., Ovintiv USA, Inc., and Ovintiv Marketing Inc., (collectively referred to as "Ovintiv"), alleges and states as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff was at all times herein an individual resident of Oklahoma County and a citizen of the State of Oklahoma. 2. Defendants Ovintiv are citizens of and have their principal paces of business located in a state other than Oklahoma. 3. Upon information and belief, Ovintiv USA, Inc., and Ovintiv Marketing Inc., can be served with process through their registered service agent, Corporation Service Company, 10300 Greenbriar Place, Oklahoma City, OK 73159. 4. Upon information and belief, Ovintiv Services Inc., can be served with process through its registered service agent, The Corporations Company, 1833 S. Morgan Road, Oklahoma City, OK 73128. 5. Upon information and belief, one or more Defendants own property in Kingfisher County, State of Oklahoma. 6. That the matter sued on herein occurred in Kingfisher County, State of Oklahoma 7. That the amount in controversy is in excess of Seventy-five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). 8. This Court has jurisdiction and venue over this lawsuit pursuant to 12 O.S. § 134, 135, and 137. STATEMENT OF FACTS 9. That on or about October 7, 2024, Adam Mackey was performing work at Stangl 36-16-918H in Kingfisher County, State of Oklahoma owned and/or operated in whole or in part by Defendants Ovintiv. 10. Adam Mackey was directed by Defendants to perform certain specific works at the premises. 11. While performing at the aforementioned location Adam Mackey was severely injured as a result of an explosion and fire. 12. As the proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, as more fully described below, Adam Mackey suffered severe injuries. He incurred substantial medical treatment expenses as well as other damages, all in the amount in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence 13. The Plaintiff adopts and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 13 above, as if more fully stated out herein, and further alleges and states as follows: 14. That at all times herein Adam Mackey was an invitee. 15. The Defendants had a duty to use ordinary care to keep and maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition for all persons lawfully on the premises. 16. That all Defendants had a further duty to either remove, eliminate, guard against, barricade, block access to, and/or warn of any hidden dangers that they either actually knew about or that they should have known about in the exercise of reasonable care that were created by the Defendants or any of their employees or agents who were acting within the scope of the agency or employment. Further, this duty extends to all portions of the premises to which an invitee may reasonably be expected to go. 17. That all Defendants further had a duty to provide a reasonably safe place to work for Adam Mackey, which includes, but is not limited to, identifying, inspecting, monitoring for, removing, guarding against, barricading blocking access to, implementing and enforcing adequate safety measures, and/or or otherwise protecting Adam Mackey from hazards which he may be expected to encounter while performing his assigned duties. 18. That all Defendants had a duty to provide adequate training, supervision, direction, instructions, and oversight to all persons invited to or expected to be working upon the premises to protect them from hazardous conditions. 19. That the Defendants’ said duty(ies) are nondelegable. 20. The Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care and failed in one or more of the aforementioned duties resulting in the explosion and fire that injured Adam Mackey. 21. Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to, among other things, (a) implement, abide by, regulate, and enforce any and all adequate safety measures; (b) provide adequate training and supervision; (c) provide and/or implement an adequate safety program; and (d) follow applicable codes, statutes, and/or standards to protect the Plaintiff from hazardous conditions while working at the oil well site. As mandated by 76 O.S. §5(a) and noted in Brown v. C.H. Guernsey & Co., 1973 OK CIV APP 23, 533 P.2d 1009, everyone, as a general rule, is liable for the consequences of his wrongdoing, absent legal immunity. 22. That the incident and Adam Mackey’s resulting injuries were caused and brought about by the negligence, reckless, and/or wanton disregard of Defendants and any and all of their employees/agents. 23. That as the direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned negligence and reckless acts of Defendants and any and all of their employee/agent, Plaintiff suffered severe conscious mental and physical pain and suffering, disfigurement, disability, medical bills, and financial and/or economic losses in an amount in excess of Seventy-five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). 24. That based on Defendants’ willful, reckless, and/or gross disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against each of the Defendants in an amount in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Ultrahazardous Activity 25. The Plaintiff adopts and incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 25 above, as if more fully state out herein, and further alleges and states as follows: 26. That Defendants were engaged in abnormally dangerous activities that endangered the person(s) and property of others. The activity posed a high degree of risk of great harm. Defendants either failed to eliminate the risk of such great harm or had no ability to do so. Defendants are, therefore, strictly liable for the injuries and damages asserted herein. 27. That as the direct and proximate cause of the abnormally dangerous activities conducted but Defendants, Plaintiff suffered severe conscious mental and physical pain and suffering, disability, medical bills, and financial and/or economic losses in and amount in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). 28. That based on Defendants’ willful, reckless, and/or gross disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against each of the Defendants in an amount in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff prays for judgment against each of the Defendants in an amount in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) for actual damages and in an amount in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) for punitive damages against each of the Defendants, together with attorney fees, interest, all costs of this action, and any and all other relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, MAURICE G. WOODS, II, OBA #1658 MAURICE WOODS, II PLLC 410 NW 13th Street Oklahoma City, OK 73103 405-232-5067 (o) 405-232-0009 (f) [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff