Reggie Elliott v. El Paso Corporation
181 So. 3d 263
Miss.2015Background
- A natural-gas pipeline under Cuba Street fractured and leaked odorized natural gas that migrated toward and into the Elliotts’ home, causing an explosion that killed Joe Elliott and injured other family members.
- The Elliotts had propane in the home and were not natural-gas customers; they reported they did not smell gas before the explosion.
- CPChem manufactured the mercaptan-based odorant (Scentinal S-20); Tri-State distributed/sold CPChem’s odorant to the local utility (HSUD); Tennessee Gas Pipeline/El Paso (TGP) transported unodorized gas to the city gate but did not odorize it or maintain the local distribution line.
- Plaintiffs alleged odorant "fade" (loss of warning scent in soil migration) and sued CPChem, Tri-State, and TGP under negligence, strict liability, and the Mississippi Products Liability Act (MPLA), seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to CPChem and TGP but denied Tri-State’s motion; the Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed whether summary judgment was proper as to each defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the MPLA govern claims based on odorant defects? | Elliott: Claims for failure to warn and defect are products claims and can proceed outside MPLA negligence framework. | CPChem/Tri-State/TGP: MPLA is the exclusive remedy for product-caused injuries; MPLA controls analysis. | MPLA applies; products-based negligence/strict-liability claims must be analyzed under MPLA. |
| Are TGP’s negligence/common-law claims for failure to warn viable? | Elliott: TGP had a duty to warn the public about odorant fade and gas detectors. | TGP: Federal statutes/regulations do not impose a duty to warn about odorant fade; TGP only transported gas and did not cause or control local distribution. | No duty shown; negligence claims against TGP fail for lack of duty and proximate cause. |
| Design-defect under MPLA — did plaintiffs prove a feasible alternative design? | Elliott: Odorant was defectively designed because it fades; alternative is to rely on other warning systems (e.g., in-home detectors). | CPChem/Tri-State: Plaintiffs offered no expert alternative odorant design; requiring detectors is a different warning system, not a feasible alternative design. | Design-defect claims fail—plaintiffs offered no feasible alternative design for the odorant. |
| Failure-to-warn under MPLA — did plaintiffs show ordinary users would not realize the danger? | Elliott: Defendants knew of odorant fade and should have warned the public about fade and detectors. | CPChem/Tri-State: MPLA bars warning claims unless ordinary users (i.e., utility customers/sellers) would not have realized the danger; utilities are the ordinary consumers and knew of fade. | Failure-to-warn claims fail because plaintiffs cannot show ordinary users/consumers (utilities) were unaware of odorant fade; plaintiffs themselves were not "ordinary users." |
| Is Tri-State liable for negligent training/public-education drafting? | Elliott: Tri-State negligently trained HSUD and drafted its public-awareness program, causing lack of warnings about fade. | Tri-State: Any claims are product-based and governed by MPLA; plaintiffs cannot prove required MPLA elements (feasible design, ordinary-consumer ignorance). | Summary judgment should have been granted for Tri-State; denial reversed and judgment rendered for Tri-State. |
| Are punitive damages available? | Elliott: Seek punitive damages against defendants for willful or reckless conduct. | Defendants: Punitive damages depend on surviving compensatory claims. | Punitive-damage claims fail because underlying compensatory claims fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawson v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 75 So. 3d 1024 (Miss. 2011) (MPLA is the exclusive remedy for product-caused injuries)
- Williams v. Bennett, 921 So. 2d 1269 (Miss. 2006) (plaintiff must present feasible alternative design evidence in design-defect claims)
- 3M Co. v. Johnson, 895 So. 2d 151 (Miss. 2005) (absence of feasible alternative design defeats design-defect claim)
- Clark v. Brass Eagle, Inc., 866 So. 2d 456 (Miss. 2004) (summary judgment affirmed where no feasible alternative design offered)
- Gulledge v. Shaw, 880 So. 2d 288 (Miss. 2004) (elements of negligence and proximate cause principles)
- Nix v. Smith, 142 So. 3d 384 (Miss. 2014) (no punitive damages without a valid compensatory claim)
- Menschik v. Mid-America Pipeline Co., 812 S.W.2d 861 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991) (court held a transmission pipeline could be treated as a seller where it placed odorized gas into commerce; discussed but distinguished)