Page 23 - GaPGA_Magazine_third quarter

it is released and is therefore not as heavy as the 263 (Miss. 2015), the Mississippi Supreme
unmixed gas from a leak, leading to a combustible Court held that a natural gas pipeline owner
mixture close to the cooktop but not at the detec- had no duty to warn consumers about the
tor’s lower location. The manual went on to say use of gas detectors. The court in Moore LEGAL UPDATE
that “eventually the gas will reach the detector’s v. Centerpoint Energy Resources Corp., Case
location and be detected.” However, in this case, No. A14-1751 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015), held
post-accident testing confirmed that, even when that a product manufacturer was not re-
exposed to a gas concentration that should have quired to incorporate a gas detector into its
been sufficient to produce an alarm, the detector gas stove. According to the court in Stoffel
failed to operate. v. Thermogas, 998 F. Supp. 1021 (N.D. Ia.
1997), an upstream gas supplier had no duty
The Fluor case underscores that gas detectors can to warn about gas detectors because it had
and do malfunction, and that even one that is provided warnings about odor fade to an in-
working properly will alarm only if gas is present termediary who had taken reasonable steps
in sufficient concentration at the detector. What’s to advise the end user of odor fade; there-
true in real estate is also true about gas detectors: fore, the general rule that there is no duty
Location, Location, Location! to advise about available means for ame-
lioration of obvious dangers applied. There
Even if detectors were 100% “effective,” cases
from across the country suggest the McElyea case are other cases with similar holdings, all of
faces other significant legal hurdles. Besides the which suggest that the majority position
substantial obstacles in establishing the elements is that there generally is no duty to advise
of class action certification, many courts have re- about the availability of gas detectors. If no
such duty exists, it would be a stretch to say
jected the notion that a retailer or others in the there is a duty to actually supply detectors.
stream of distribution have a duty to advise about Whether the court in Dallas County agrees
the availability of gas detectors, much less any duty remains to be seen. Stay tuned.
to supply them. In Elliott v. El Paso Corp., 181 So.3d

Editor’s Note: We want to welcome Mark Dreyer to the GPGA Marketer Maga-
zine as our provider of legal articles. Mark is a partner in the law firm of Conner
& Winters, LLP in Tulsa, OK. Mark has litigated cases since 1988. His practice
includes representing different segments of the gas fuels industry, the vehicle
rental industry, and product manufacturers. Mark has defended propane retail-
ers, wholesalers, and tank manufacturers in personal injury, wrongful death,
and property damage claims in twenty states, as well as provided counsel
regarding regulatory compliance matters. He has also represented gas utilities
in personal injury and property damage claims. We look forward to sharing
Mark’s articles with our readers in each issue. Mark’s first article is one that
dates back to 2007, but serves as a reminder of the importance of training and
documentation. This article would be good to use as safety meeting material for
both new and seasoned employees.

GPGA MARKETER November 2019 PAGE 23