Page 15 - sept-oct 2017_Neat
P. 15
affi rmation on the warning card qualifi ed plumber work on the an explosion, followed by a fi re
and left one copy with her. gas system, Thomas asked in the apartment. Westbrook
He also testifi ed he explained his friend, “John,” who had was burned on his face and
the dangerous situation to done some odd jobs for him hands and his friend was also
her and the stepson, and left in the past, to turn the gas on. injured. The fi re department’s
another copy of the warning Thomas was not at home when investigator determined that
card on the gas meter. In a John came to do the work, but the cause of the explosion
classic “he said, she said” Thomas knew that John had was an open gas line. Both
scenario, Northcutt testifi ed turned the gas on. Signifi cantly, Westbrook and his friend sued
that she did not recall having Thomas also testifi ed “he did AGL for negligence.
this conversation with Newell not know the extent of John’s The Lawsuit.
but she thought she would background in plumbing, but Westbrook and his friend
remember if someone told her doubted John was trained as a alleged in their lawsuit that AGL
that the house could catch on plumber.” was negligent in a number of
fi re. Thomas’ stepson testifi ed The last link in the chain ways: failing to identify and
that he was not even at the of events leading up to the eliminate a gas leak; failing
house when to close an open
Newell explained The door to safety swings on the line, including
the situation. hinges of common sense. ~ failing to lock the
Northcutt also gas meter; failing
testifi ed that Author unknown to train its service
she did not tell representatives;
Thomas that the and failing to
AGL employee could not turn incident occurred when adequately warn them or
the gas on because there was Westbrook came to the Thomas about the dangerous
a leak in the line and could not apartment one morning, after nature of the gas leak. AGL
remember if she gave Thomas the gas had been turned on fi led a summary judgment
the warning card. by Thomas’ handyman, to motion asserting that as
Thomas disputed whether start moving in his belongings. a matter of law Thomas’
a copy of the warning card Westbrook brought a friend conduct, not AGL’s, was
had been left at the meter but along to help him unload his the proximate cause of the
testifi ed that he saw a warning belongings from his vehicle incident. The trial court granted
card, and “gazed over it.” and move things into the AGL’s motion, “concluding
Thomas asserted that he did apartment. Westbrook testifi ed that the intervening actions
not understand the warning he did not smell anything of Northcutt, Thomas, and
card meant he had a leak in unusual except the apartment Thomas’ handyman broke the
his gas system–his take on it smelled “old” like other times causal connection between
was that “the meter had been when he was there. However, any negligence by AGL in
left off and that a plumber was this time Westbrook used his failing to lock the meter (or
supposed to come and do lighter to light incense while train its representative to do
whatever needed to be done standing at the open door of so) and the plaintiffs’ injuries.”
before the gas was turned the apartment to get rid of the The trial court also rejected
on” and that “everything was “old” smell. Immediately after plaintiff’s failure to warn claim
good.” Instead of having a he ignited his lighter, there was fi nding that AGL’s warning card
15
