Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06223/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06223-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 

---

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROSENDO MUNIZ, SR.; EUNICE LEE ) 

MUNIZ; ROSENDO MUNIZ, JR.; ) 

ROSENDO MUNIZ, SR., a Personal ) 

Representative of the Estate of ) 

Mary Jane Muniz and Josephine ) 

Lynn Muniz; GUADALUPE MUNIZ; ) 

) 

Plaintiffs - Appellants, ) 

) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

MASCO CORPORATION; AMERICAN ) 

METAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION; ) 

) 

Defendants, ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

LONE STAR GAS COMPANY, a Division ) 

of Enserch Corporation; ENSERCH ) 

CORPORATION, ) 

) 

Defendants - Appellees. ) 

FEB 6 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-6223 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-1488-R) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENTl 

Before McKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

1 This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6223 Document: 010110098463 Date Filed: 02/06/1991 Page: 1 
assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

This diversity action arises out of the alleged wrongful 

deaths of Mary Jane Muniz and Josephine Lynn Muniz. Plaintiffs 

appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant 

Lone Star Gas Company. 

I. 

On March 10, 1989, a natural gas fire occurred in plaintiffs' 

mobile home causing the deaths of Mary Jane Muniz and Josephine 

Muniz. Defendant Lone Star Gas Company supplied natural gas to 

the Muniz mobile home on the date of the accident. 

The mobile home was fitted with a metal connector made of 

brass tubing which linked the home's gas supply piping to a cook 

stove. Plaintiffs contend that the fire occurred because the connector was defective and leaked natural gas. The defect was 

allegedly caused by a phenomenon known as "stress corrosion cracking." This phenomenon occurs when moisture and ammonia combine to 

corrode and crack a brass alloy that is under stress. 

In 1975, the American Gas Association ("AGA") and the 

American National Standards Institute ("ANSI") required an external protective coating be placed on brass gas appliance connectors 

to prevent stress corrosion cracking. The standard, however, did 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6223 Document: 010110098463 Date Filed: 02/06/1991 Page: 2 
not apply retroactively. Nor did it require removal of existing 

uncoated connectors in use by consumers. Record, Vol. II, Doc. 

72, at 74. Plaintiffs' cook stove was fitted with an uncoated 

connector manufactured in 1972, three years prior to the issuance 

of the standard. 

In March 1985, plaintiffs complained to Lone Star about a 

high gas bill. A Lone Star representative inspected plaintiffs' 

fittings and appliances, but found no leaks or other defects. 

II. 

In reviewing a summary judgment order, the appellate court 

must examine the record to determine if any genuine issue of 

material fact was in dispute. Osgood v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 848 F.2d 141, 143 (10th Cir. 1988). If there was no 

such dispute, the court must decide whether the substantive law 

was applied correctly. Id. The moving party has the burden of 

proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it was entitled to summary 

judgment, and it is the appellate court's duty to review the 

record in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Ewing 

v. Amoco Oil Co., 823 F.2d 1432, 1437 (10th Cir. 1987). 

Plaintiffs contend that there are genuine issues of material 

fact in dispute under Oklahoma negligence law. Specifically, 

plaintiffs argue that the issue of whether defendants had actual 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6223 Document: 010110098463 Date Filed: 02/06/1991 Page: 3 
knowledge that the gas appliance connector was defective is disputed and that the district court, therefore, incorrectly granted 

summary judgment to Lone Star. 

Oklahoma case law provides that without actual notice of a 

defect, a gas company has the right to assume that customers will 

maintain the pipes and fixtures on their premises and under their 

control in a reasonably safe condition. Okmulgee Gas Co. v. 

Kelly, 105 Okl. 189, 232 P. 428, 430 (Okla. 1924). Absent actual 

notice of a defect, the gas company has no duty to inspect a customer's lines and fittings for defects. Price v. MacThwaite Oil & 

Gas Co., 177 Okl. 495, 61 P.2d 177, 179 (Okla. 1936); Okmulgee, 

232 P. at 430. A gas company which does not install pipes i n a 

customer's home, and which has no control over them, is not 

responsible for the condition in which they are maintained and is 

not liable for injuries caused by leaks from those pipes of which 

it has no actual knowledge. North British and Mercantile Ins. Co. 

v. Consolidated Gas Utilities Corp., 166 F.2d 398, 399 (10th Cir. 

1948). 

The plaintiffs also direct our attention to the Texas decis i on of Blassingame v. Lone Star Gas Co., 236 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. Ct. 

App. 1950). That case states that if the gas company was in possession of facts that would suggest to a person of ordinary care 

and prudence that the connector was unsafe for the transportation 

of gas, and proceeded to furnish gas, it is liable for injuries 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-6223 Document: 010110098463 Date Filed: 02/06/1991 Page: 4 
which result therefrom to any person in the building who is without fault. Id. at 534. 

In addition, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission has set 

forth the responsibilities of both consumers and utilities for 

maintaining gas equipment. The regulations state: 

[A]ll gas lines, pipes, and equipment owned by the consumer shall be maintained in safe, efficient and proper 

condition by and at the expense of the consumer. 

Corporation Commission Reg. 6(D). 

That the gas companies shall operate and maintain in 

safe, efficient and proper condition all of its facilities and instrumentalities used in connection with the 

transmission, distribution, storage, regulation, measurement, and delivery of gas to each consumer up to and 

including the point of delivery into the piping owned by 

the consumer. Unless otherwise agreed by the utility 

and consumer, the point of delivery shall be at the outflow side of the meter. 

Corporation Commission Reg. 6(A). 

Plaintiffs have not pre~ented evidence that establishes a 

dispute over the issue of whether Lone Star had actual notice that 

the appliance connector was defective. The connector was AGA certified, met the standards applicable to a connector manufactured 

in 1972, and was in good condition when a Lone Star representative 

examined it in 1985. In addition, plaintiffs' own expert, O.C. 

Davis, testified that an uncoated connector in good condition and 

in use is not sufficient to render it defective or unreasonably 

dangerous. Record, Vol. II, Doc. 72, at 75. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-6223 Document: 010110098463 Date Filed: 02/06/1991 Page: 5 
By itself, the 1975 industry standard does not give Lone Star 

actual notice that an uncoated connector in good condition is 

defective. The standard's nonretroactivity could be read as suggesting that uncoated connectors in good condition are safe and 

that an external protective coating is a safety improvement for 

brass connectors. The testimony of o.c. Davis supports this conclusion. Indeed, plaintiffs themselves characterize the coating 

as an "added safety feature." Brief for Plaintiffs at 4, Muniz v. 

Lone Star, (W.D. Okla. Aug. 7, 1990) (No. 90-6223). Moreover, 

plaintiffs have not presented evidence demonstrating that Lone 

Star had actual notice that uncoated connectors are defective. 

Plaintiffs' expert, Charles C. Lamar, stated that in his opinion 

an uncoated connector is defective and unreasonably dangerous. 

However, his testimony does not say that Lone Star had actual 

notice that the connector was defective. 2 Record, Vol. I, Doc. 

47, at 2. The evidence required to raise a material issue is both 

a defect and actual notice to the gas company of that defect. The 

issue of actual notice of a defective condition is not a general 

issue of material fact in dispute. The district court did not err 

when it granted summary judgment. 

Plaintiffs also claim that the district court incorrectly 

applied substantive law to the facts by affording the 1975 

2 Mr. Lamar also stated that in his opinion Lone Star should 

have instructed their employees who encounter an uncoated 

connectors to cease gas service until the connector is replaced. 

Record, Vol. I, Doc. 47, at 2. This statement does not indicate 

that Lone Star had actual notice that uncoated connectors are 

defective. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-6223 Document: 010110098463 Date Filed: 02/06/1991 Page: 6 
industry standard the force and effect of law. Although evidence 

of an industry custom or practice is admissible to assist the jury 

in determining the standard of care required of the defendant, it 

does not itself define the standard required. American Smelting & 

Refining Co. v. Wusich, 92 Ariz. 159, 375 P.2d 364, 368 (Ariz. 

1962). Since an entire industry might adopt careless methods to 

save time and money, it cannot establish its own legal standard of 

care that might be negligent in fact. See Tug Ocean Prince, Inc. 

v. United States, 584 F.2d 1151 (2d Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 

U.S. 959 (1979). 

While the 1975 industry standard does not define the legal 

standard of conduct, Oklahoma law requires that Lone Star have 

actual notice of a defect before liability is imposed for injuries 

caused by leaks in the consumer's pipes. Okmulgee Gas Co. v. 

Kelly, 105 Okl. 189, 232 P. 428, 430 (Okla. 1924). We do not 

believe that the industry standard qualified by nonretroactivity 

gives a gas company actual notice that the connector is defecti ve. 

Plaintiffs have not presented evidence demonstrating that Lone 

Star had actual notice that an uncoated connector is defective. 

Accordingly, the district court committed no error.

3 

3 The plaintiffs also argue that by giving the 1975 industry 

standard the force of law, the district court resolved the issue 

of defendant's knowledge of a defective and dangerous connector. 

In light of our conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to present 

evidence demonstrating that an uncoated connector provides actual 

notice of a defective condition, we find that summary judgment was 

properly granted. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 90-6223 Document: 010110098463 Date Filed: 02/06/1991 Page: 7 
Plaintiffs' final contention on appeal is that the district 

court incorrectly granted summary judgment to Lone Star on plaintiffs' product liability claim. The district court ruled that 

this claim was legally insufficient because "Lone Star was neither 

the manufacturer, seller, nor supplier of the allegedly defective 

connector." Muniz v. Lone Star, No. 89-1488-R (W.D. Okla. May 16, 

1990) (Order). Plaintiffs' complaint, however, did not allege 

that the defective appliance connector was the basis of their 

products liability claim. Instead, plaintiffs argued that the 

natural gas was defective and unreasonably dangerous because Lone 

Star failed to warn that the use of natural gas in conjunction 

with an uncoated connector could be dangerous. 

Plaintiffs have advanced no authority that would support a 

strict products liability claim against a natural gas supplier who 

fails to warn of the dangers of transporting gas to a connector of 

which they have no notice of its alleged defect. The district 

court correctly granted summary judgment on the products liability 

issue, as well as on plaintiffs' negligence claim. 

The district court's Order is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

-8-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6223 Document: 010110098463 Date Filed: 02/06/1991 Page: 8