37 N.E.3d 514
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- Empire Gas supplied and maintained a propane tank at a mobile home rented by Middleton (service started Oct. 2010); a safety check and safety packet were given to Middleton. Middleton died July 2011; Empire Gas refunded unused propane and locked the POL valve on the tank.
- New tenants (Mauck and Thomas) moved in Oct. 2011 without contacting Empire Gas; the POL lock was later found tampered with, the gas line connected, and the in-home valve opened.
- On Oct. 23, 2011, after attempting to light the furnace pilot (smelling a little gas initially), the trailer exploded when Mauck lit a cigarette; plaintiffs suffered severe burns. Empire Gas’s investigation found the POL lock tampered with and no tank or supply-line failure.
- Plaintiffs sued Empire Gas for negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranties under Indiana’s Product Liability Act; Empire Gas moved for summary judgment arguing no duty, non-manufacturer status, and presumption of non-defect for regulatory compliance.
- Trial court denied summary judgment; on appeal the court (majority) affirmed denial as to negligence (duty exists) but reversed as to strict liability (Empire Gas is a retailer, not a manufacturer) and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligence — duty to warn/use care | Tenants: Empire Gas had a duty to warn and exercise reasonable care in distribution of propane that could foreseeably harm occupants. | Empire Gas: no duty to tenants because they never requested service and Empire Gas had secured the tank after prior customer’s death. | Denied summary judgment — court held gas distributor owes a general duty of reasonable care to those foreseeably endangered (including future occupants); factual issues remain on breach/proximate cause. |
| Strict liability under Product Liability Act | Tenants: propane (or odorant) was defective/unreasonably dangerous and left defendant’s control. | Empire Gas: not a manufacturer; statute bars strict-liability suits against mere sellers/retailers. | Granted summary judgment for Empire Gas — undisputed evidence showed Empire Gas was a retailer and did not manufacture or add odorant, so strict liability claim fails. |
| Breach of warranties (UCC vs. Act) | Tenants: warranty claims for defective product. | Empire Gas: warranty claims are subsumed by the Act when tort-based; no contract-based warranty pleaded. | Court treated warranty claims as merged into strict-liability analysis and did not reach separate UCC recovery; strict-liability disposition controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992 (Ind. 1991) (standard for duty analysis and summary-judgment review guidance)
- Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. 2009) (summary-judgment de novo standard; material/genuine factual dispute definitions)
- S.E. Ind. Natural Gas Co. v. Ingram, 617 N.E.2d 943 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (gas company duty extends to public, customers, and foreseeable third parties; includes duty to warn)
- Palmer & Sons Paving, Inc. v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 758 N.E.2d 550 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (gas is a dangerous instrumentality; distributor owes reasonable-care duty)
- Kennedy v. Guess, Inc., 806 N.E.2d 776 (Ind. 2004) (Product Liability Act limits strict liability actions against sellers who are not manufacturers)