$8,400,000 Verdict – Utility Liability
Reprinted from: The National Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

The plaintiff's home was located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Suit was filed in Beaumont, Texas. the corporate headquarters of the defendant Gulf States Utilities. The plaintiff's cause and origin expert testified that the cause of the fire was a natural gas leak stemming from any of three different potential sites. Specifically, the plaintiff's expert and an investigator from the fire department maintained that an obvious area of leakage was found in the bathroom in the area of the hot water heater. The plaintiff elicited testimony from the defendant's employee service man to the effect that he did not observe the gas cap located next to the hot water healer when he was servicing the residence.

The plaintiff's evidence indicated that several witnesses, including the plaintiff's two cause and origin experts and the fire investigator, noted the gas cap to be loose following the explosion. The plaintiff's cause and origin expert maintained based upon his examination of the inside of the cap, that the cap lid been turned one full turn and that such an amount of looseness was sufficient to permit leakage of gas which would form pockets throughout the house.

The plaintiff's experts maintained that another area of leakage was found in the flex line attached to the hot water heater. The defendant's employee serviceman testified that he checked the entire water heater, including the flex line, carefully and that there was no leak. In rebuttal, the plaintiff called the homeowner who testified that it would have been impossible for the serviceman to thoroughly check the water heater as claimed since the serviceman was not able to gain access through a closet door that was nailed tightly shut.

The plaintiff contended that the defendant negligently failed to formulate, implement and enforce appropriate policies nod procedures for hooking up and turning on gas at a vacant residence. The plaintiff contended that the defendant could have followed more demanding procedures, some of which were required by East Baton Rouge Parish, but ignored by Gulf States. The defendant however, chose to follow only minimum national requirements, according to the plaintiff's evidence. The plaintiff contended that had the defendant's policies and practices been more stringent, the serviceman who hooked up the gas at the plaintiff's house would likely have detected several source areas of gas leakage.

The defendant utility denied liability and contended that the plaintiff attempted to commit suicide by unscrewing one or more pipe caps on the gas lines in the house. Alternatively, the defendant argued that the plaintiff, after filling the house with gas, decided not to commit suicide and negligently lit a match causing the explosion. This defense was based upon evidence that the plaintiff had been diagnosed as a schizophrenic and had attempted to commit suicide by turning on the gas in his sister's home two and one-half years earlier. The defendant also offered evidence that the plaintiff had been convicted of felony crimes and that he had once also tried to hang himself.

There was no evidence that the plaintiff had any suicidal ideation at any time relevant to the explosion. Over 1500 pages of medical records were introduced for the three month hospitalization the plaintiff underwent, nowhere in which did any doctor, nurse or technician note any indication or suspicion that the plaintiff had attempted to commit suicide or even had suicidal ideation.

The defendant presented testimony from a cause and origin expert who maintained that the explosion could not have resulted from the leaks allegedly pinpointed by the plaintiff's experts, and that much more gas fueled the subject explosion than could possibly have escaped via the areas of leakage noted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's experts countered with the use of demonstrative exhibits and basic principles of physics, that the gas likely accumulated in pockets and that the plaintiff was unknowingly standing inside a pocket when he lit a match.

The plaintiff claimed damages for the physical injuries sustained as a result of the explosion and the severe pain and suffering attendant to burn injuries. The plaintiff additionally asserted a claim for punitive damages against the defendant utility based upon the defendant's alleged gross negligence in failing to follow their own procedures with regard to hooking up and activating the gas in the subject residence. The defendant's em­ployee serviceman was confronted with the company manual which indicated the proce­dures which the employee had admittedly failed to follow in activating the gas and ensuring safe operation.

The defendant's highest offer prior to trial was $25,000. The jury found for the plaintiff and resumed a verdict of $8,400,000, including $1,500,000 in punitive damages.

REFERENCE

Plaintiff’s cause and origin experts: Bill Lute and Jerry Gilmore of Dallas, TX.

Frances Q. Salsberry as the next friend of Earl White vs. Gulf Sates Utilities Co. Case no. B.I40,285; 7-9-93

Attorney’s for plaintiffs: Joseph J. McKernan of Baton Rouge, LA and Paul Gold of Houston, TX.

COMMENTARY

The plaintiff was able to overcome the extreme difficulty posed by the plaintiff's two prior suicide attempts, one of which very closely paralleled the events surround­ing subject incident. Counsel for plaintiff made the strategic determination to deal with this serious potential problem in a straightforward manner beginning with voire dire and closely questioning each possible member of the jury as to his or her ability to judge the evidence fairly without prejudicing the plaintiff’s to his prior men­tal and psychological problems and criminal history. Counsel for plaintiff, in voire dire and opening statement, described this case as a battle between a poor, downtrod­den, homeless, convicted felon and a power­ful corporation. The substantial award returned by the jury reflected not only the severity of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, but also included a punitive aspect based upon the evidence demonstrating a reckless disregard on the part of the defendant of the welfare of the public in conduc­ting this particularly dangerous job of hooking up and turning on gas.