|
|
Sufficient warning
July 1, 2009 By: John V. McCoy LPGas
The recent case of Lammle v. Gappa Oil Co., et al., has received some much-deserved notoriety as a piece of good legal news in the thorny arena of defending propane industry members in litigation.
The decision is from the Minnesota Court of Appeals, but it is not published and, as a result, has limited value. Put simply, it may be persuasive in a given case, but it is not considered to be legal precedent that a subsequent court must follow. To the degree the facts and legal analysis in the opinion are persuasive to a subsequent court, the case may be enough to render a decision along similar lines as found in this ruling.
The essence of the decision is that there is no requirement in the law that a “super warning” be given advising consumers of all potential propane risks – including explosions – beyond those that are reasonably foreseeable. The court concluded that public policy does not support imposing a duty on wholesale suppliers to warn of every conceivable explosion that could occur at any point in the supply chain.
The court also concluded that properly odorized propane is not defective from a legal standpoint simply because someone in the chain of distribution did not install a gas detector in the home where gas is used. The court concluded that there are no controlling statutes or regulations that require propane wholesalers to warn about or provide an alternative propane detection device or system besides the odorant itself. Of note is the fact that the plaintiffs offered no direct support for the proposition that propane sold without a propane gas detector is a defective product.
The court also dismissed several warranty claims that had been raised in the case.
Favorable results
Our office recently used the Lammle decision as framework for a summary judgment motion to dismiss a wholesale propane client in a separate case filed in Minnesota. After filing the legal brief, the case was quickly and favorably resolved for our client. We believe there are several reasons for this result.
The wholesaler almost always finds itself in the same factual situation as the wholesaler in the Lammle case. As a result, this case can be used to frame a dismissal motion in any case where a wholesale marketer is a named defendant.
In addition, since the factual patterns for wholesalers are so similar on a case-by-case basis, the Lammle case has a likelihood of persuading any reviewing trial or appellate court.
The Lammle court decision also lays out a persuasive argument in terms of companies that sell or distribute propane to consumers. It says properly odorized gas with good warnings that recommend gas detectors is reasonable as far as the law and public policy should go.
Whether subsequent courts in other jurisdictions will follow the lead of the Lammle court is still unknown. What is certain is that applying the analysis to a similar case by our firm has so far been an overwhelming success. We certainly plan to advocate this position where appropriate in other down the road.
Please spread the word about this case so it will have broad benefit in bringing this issue into focus.
Please send any technical comments or questions to our webmaster.