Kevin Westbrook v. Atlanta Gas Light Company
340 Ga. App. 11
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Oct. 22, 2010, AGL field rep Kenny Newell visited Herschel Thomas’ property to restore service; Thomas was not home, and Tiffany Northcutt met Newell on Thomas’ behalf.
- Newell found and capped an open gas line behind a stove, inspected the furnace, tested the meter, observed a leak/open line, turned the meter off, but did not replace the lock on the meter valve.
- Newell left a written warning card marked “DANGER” indicating a leak in house piping, handwriting: “Leak in fuel line. Left meter off but unlocked for plumber,” and had Northcutt sign acknowledgment; Thomas read the card but later asked a handyman (John) to turn the gas back on.
- On Nov. 4, 2010, while moving in, Westbrook lit a lighter in the apartment, causing an explosion from an open gas line; Westbrook and Gould sued AGL for negligence (including failure to lock meter and failure to warn).
- Trial court granted summary judgment for AGL, finding (1) intervening acts by third parties (Thomas, Northcutt, handyman) broke proximate causation and (2) AGL’s written warning was adequate as a matter of law; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AGL’s failure to replace lock (or train rep) proximately caused plaintiffs’ injuries | AGL’s omission made premises less safe and foreseeably led to someone turning gas on and causing explosion | Intervening act of homeowner/handyman turning gas on after reading warning breaks causal chain; AGL could not reasonably foresee that | Held for AGL — intervening acts were superseding; no proximate cause linking AGL’s conduct to injuries |
| Adequacy of warning (substance) | Warning failed to specify risk of explosion or that innocuous acts (e.g., light switch) could ignite gas | Written card plainly warned of a dangerous leak and instructed not to use gas until repaired by qualified person | Held for AGL — written “DANGER” card was substantively adequate; obviousness of gas danger means no further detail required |
| Adequacy of warning (communication) — not placed on meter; not orally given to homeowner | Warning not effectively communicated to Thomas; lack of oral notice to homeowner made warning insufficient | Card was delivered to person left to meet rep; Newell testified he explained condition to Northcutt; Thomas read the card | Held for AGL — no genuine dispute Newell warned an agent/occupant; Thomas read the card, so failure to relay by intermediary does not impose liability on AGL |
| Relevance of regulatory duty to lock meter (49 C.F.R. §192.727) | Regulatory requirement to lock creates heightened duty and foreseeability | Even if violation occurred, negligence per se does not remove proximate-cause requirement; intervening acts still break causal chain | Held for AGL — statutory violation (if any) does not negate proximate cause analysis; intervening acts control outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Stegall v. Cent. Ga. Elec. Membership Corp., 221 Ga. App. 187 (service technician warned tenant; subsequent third-party actions turning breaker on broke proximate causation)
- Ontario Sewing Mach. Co. v. Smith, 275 Ga. 683 (intervening new cause relieves original wrongdoer of liability unless intervening act was foreseeable)
- Beasley v. A Better Gas Co., 269 Ga. App. 426 (denial of summary judgment where defendant left hazardous gas line exposed without warning)
- Royal v. Ferrellgas, Inc., 254 Ga. App. 696 (no duty breach where warning was given to employer and plaintiff knew hazard but failed to heed it)
- Armor Gas Corp. v. Davis, 93 Ga. App. 563 (common knowledge that escaping inflammable gas is dangerous; limits duty to warn)