SKAGGS v. FERRELLGAS, INC., 1:21-cv-02406

Sheila Skaggs, an employee of Faurecia USA Holdings, Inc., was injured by a workplace explosion caused by a propane leak at Faurecia's facility in Indiana.
Ferrellgas, Inc. supplied and installed the propane dispensing equipment under a contract with Faurecia, and provided initial safety training for certain Faurecia employees, who were then responsible for further training.
On the incident date, a Faurecia employee (Smith) drove off with the fuel hose still attached to a forklift, rupturing the hose and causing a propane leak, which led to an explosion injuring Skaggs.
Previous “pull-away” incidents were reported to Ferrellgas, who made repairs, but disputes remain about the adequacy of training, maintenance obligations, and equipment design.
Skaggs sued Ferrellgas for negligence, and both parties moved for summary judgment on the existence of a legal duty and liability under common-law negligence principles.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Ferrellgas owe Skaggs a duty of care?	As a distributor and installer of dangerous propane equipment, Ferrellgas owed a duty of care to foreseeable users, including Skaggs.	Duty was limited by contract; maintenance and training duties belonged to Faurecia; no duty to Skaggs individually.	Yes, Ferrellgas owed Skaggs a duty under common law as a supplier/distributor of a dangerous instrumentality.
Breach of Duty	Ferrellgas’s installation and warning systems were inadequate; insufficient training and unsafe hose length contributed to the accident.	All installations were code-compliant; responsibility for training was transferred to Faurecia after initial session; no breach.	Genuine disputes of material fact exist—breach is a jury question.
Proximate Cause	Ferrellgas’s failures were a foreseeable cause of injury, especially given prior pull-away incidents.	Smith’s actions and Faurecia’s failures in training/intervention were superseding causes; not foreseeable to Ferrellgas.	Factual disputes preclude summary judgment; proximate cause is for the jury.
Effect of Dispenser Agreement	Common law tort duties cannot be limited by contract; Ferrellgas cannot contract out of tort liability to third parties like Skaggs.	Contract shifted inspection/maintenance and training duties to Faurecia, limiting Ferrellgas’s obligations.	Tort duty exists independent of contract; agreement does not remove Ferrellgas’s legal obligations.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard requires inferences be drawn in favor of the non-movant)
Zerante v. DeLuca, 555 F.3d 582 (standard for summary judgment in the Seventh Circuit)
Tibbs v. Huber, 668 N.E.2d 248 (Ind. 1996) (summary judgment in negligence cases is rare due to factual nature)
Rhodes v. Wright, 805 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. 2004) (duty and breach questions in negligence; contracts do not limit tort duties)
Palmer & Sons Paving, Inc. v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 758 N.E.2d 550 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (duty of care owed by utility/gas distributors)
S.E. Ind. Natural Gas Co. v. Ingram, 617 N.E.2d 943 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (duty of gas company to reasonably foreseeable third parties)
Beta Steel v. Rust, 830 N.E.2d 62 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (installers owe duty regardless of control over premises at time of injury)
Northern Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Sharp, 790 N.E.2d 462 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (breach - generally jury question in negligence)
Goldsberry v. Grubbs, 672 N.E.2d 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (proximate cause is typically for the jury)