Edith Davis Elmore v. Dixie Pipeline Company
245 So. 3d 500
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Dixie Pipeline operates an interstate buried liquid-propane transmission pipeline built in 1961; the relevant segment passed through Clarke County, Mississippi.
- On November 1, 2007, a pipeline rupture near Carmichael, MS released propane that vaporized and exploded; Elmore owned a house ~1.1 miles away and alleged structural damage from shockwaves.
- The NTSB investigated, performed testing and inspections, and concluded the probable cause was weld failure along the longitudinal seam and girth welds; it found corrosion, excavation damage, controller actions, and operating conditions were not factors.
- Elmore sued Dixie asserting negligence, strict liability (as ultrahazardous activity), and punitive damages; discovery closed March 28, 2014.
- The trial court excluded portions of Elmore’s expert (Dr. Kendall Clarke) regarding operator standard of care, granted summary judgment on strict liability and punitive damages, and later granted summary judgment on negligence after the expert exclusion. Elmore appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of motion to produce Texas corporate-deposition transcript | Elmore: transcript was necessary evidence and should be produced | Dixie: motion was untimely (filed after discovery deadline) and discovery was complete | Court: Denial affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion (motion untimely) |
| Exclusion of Dr. Clarke's opinions on operator standard of care | Elmore: Dr. Clarke could testify on negligence without relying on federal regs | Dixie: expert lacked familiarity with 49 C.F.R. §195 and could not opine on operator duties governed by federal regs | Court: Affirmed exclusion — expert not qualified on applicable regulatory standard, testimony would not assist trier of fact |
| Summary judgment on strict-liability claim (ultrahazardous activity) | Elmore: transporting liquid propane is ultrahazardous so strict liability applies | Dixie: pipeline transport is regulated, common commercial activity, and not ultrahazardous under Restatement §520 factors | Court: Affirmed — transportation of propane is not ultrahazardous; summary judgment proper |
| Summary judgment on negligence (including res ipsa loquitur) | Elmore: negligence established via expert and alternatively res ipsa loquitur | Dixie: compliance with federal regulations and NTSB findings negate breach; expert excluded on duty/breach | Court: Affirmed — absent admissible expert to establish duty/breach and no showing res ipsa elements met, summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashmore v. Miss. Authority on Educ. Television, 148 So. 3d 977 (Miss. 2014) (trial courts have broad discretion in discovery matters)
- Patterson v. Tibbs, 60 So. 3d 742 (Miss. 2011) (standard of review for admission/exclusion of expert testimony is abuse of discretion)
- Davis v. Hoss, 869 So. 2d 397 (Miss. 2004) (standard for reviewing summary judgment; view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Donald v. Amoco Prod. Co., 735 So. 2d 161 (Miss. 1999) (discusses relationship of nuisance/trespass/strict liability and analyses of ultrahazardous activity)
- Meena v. Wilburn, 603 So. 2d 866 (Miss. 1992) (elements of negligence articulated)
- Gray v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 11 So. 3d 1269 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (elements and cautious application of res ipsa loquitur)