Page 17 - july-august 2019

the explosion The court noted The Fluor case un- No A14-1751 (Minn Ct App
that the detector’s manual rec- derscores that gas detectors 2015), held that a product
ognized a difference between can and do malfunction, and manufacturer was not required
a gas leak from a line and gas that even one that is working to incorporate a gas detector
escaping from an open burn- properly will alarm only if gas into its gas stove According to
er In the latter case, the gas is is present in sufficient concen- the court in Stoffel v Thermo-
already mixed with air when it is tration at the detector. What’s gas, 998 F Supp 1021 (N D Ia
released and is therefore not as true in real estate is also true 1997), an upstream gas supplier
heavy as the unmixed gas from about gas detectors: Location, had no duty to warn about
a leak, leading to a combusti- Location, Location! gas detectors because it had
ble mixture close to the cook- Even if detectors were provided warnings about odor
top but not at the detector’s 100% “effective,” cases from fade to an intermediary who
lower location The manual across the country suggest the had taken reasonable steps
went on to say that “eventually McElyea case faces other signif- to advise the end user of odor
the gas will reach the detec- icant legal hurdles Besides the fade; therefore, the general rule
tor’s location and be detect- substantial obstacles in estab- that there is no duty to advise
ed ” However, in this case, lishing the elements of class ac- about available means for
post-accident testing confirmed tion certification, many courts amelioration of obvious dan-
that, even when exposed to a have rejected the notion that gers applied There are other
gas concentration that should a retailer or others in the stream cases with similar holdings, all of
have been sufficient to pro- of distribution have a duty to which suggest that the majority
duce an alarm, the detector advise about the availability position is that there generally
failed to operate of gas detectors, much less is no duty to advise about the
any duty to availability of gas detectors If
supply them no such duty exists, it would be
Introducing In Elliott v El a stretch to say there is a duty
Bergquist Select Ship Paso Corp , to actually supply detectors
Whether the court in Dallas
181 So 3d 263
(Miss 2015), County agrees remains to be
the Mississip- seen. Stay tuned.■
Peace of mind when you choose 'Select Ship' pi Supreme

Program Details Court held Mark is a partner in the law firm of
Conner & Winters, LLP in Tulsa, OK.
Guaranteed Inventory ~ over 60 Equipment Items always in stock that a natural Mark has litigated cases since 1988. His
and ready to ship to Bergquist customers enrolled in 'Select Ship'. gas pipe- practice includes representing different
Call for Guaranteed Inventory equipment list. line owner segments of the gas fuels industry, the
Guaranteed 2 Business Day Delivery ~ on all of the vehicle rental industry, and product
manufacturers. Mark has defended
Guaranteed Stock Equipment items. had no duty
Offer good in the lower 48 states - Alaska & Hawaii excluded. to warn propane retailers, wholesalers, and
tank manufacturers in personal injury,
Free Freight on All Standard Equipment, consumers wrongful death, and property dam-
Vent-Free Heaters & Tankless Water Heater Orders about the age claims in twenty states, as well as
- No minimum Our other regular exceptions apply provided counsel regarding regulatory
Receive a 10% Credit if we do not have your Guaranteed Inventory Items use of gas compliance matters. He has also rep-
resented gas utilities in personal injury
in stock or do not deliver within 2 business days detectors and property damage claims.You can
Annual Subscription ~ a 499 annual subscription per 'ship to' location. The court contact Mike at:
$
Call for additional details in Moore mdreyer@cwlaw.com
v Center-
point Energy
Resources
Corp , Case
bergquistinc.com | 800.537.7518

17 Alabama Propane Gas Association | July / August 2019