Court Opinion

ID: 9859760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 22:34:50.384752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:05:04.952753
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE CRAVEN concurring in part and dissenting in part: The question of whether the defendant fulfilled its duty and whether or not the propane gas was sufficiently odorized so as to be safe was a question of fact for the jury. Thus, I agree with that portion of the majority opinion that so holds. Upon this record, the issue of negligent installation of the gasline was also a question of fact for the jury, and I would reverse and remand upon that issue. The complaint alleged that the defendant installed the tank and the connecting line in 1985. The connecting line was inserted through the foundation and, as the majority notes, apparently went through tire stucco and two bricks at the mortar joint. This distribution line, or tubing, was not protected by a noncorrosive sleeve. The tubing thus installed was corroded, leaving holes through which the gas could and did leak into the basement. The complaint alleges that the corrosion was caused by the combination of mortar and corrosive elements contained in the cement and mortar surrounding the tubing. The answer essentially admits the foregoing allegations; and as to the allegation with reference to the cause of the corrosion, the answer admits the allegation but “affirmatively states that the corrosion was not caused by any act or doing of this defendant”. Thus, upon the pleadings, it seems to me that the majority opinion requires proof of admitted facts. The defendant in this case is charged with negligent installation, not merely failure to inspect the tank and distribution system. The allegations and admissions aided by the testimony of the witness Richard Short were sufficient to establish negligent installation and a breach of the required duty, at least such was sufficient to constitute an issue of fact for the jury. The witness Short who had been in the business of sale and installation of propane facilities in the area for 12 years testified with reference to the manner of installation and the cause of corrosion. His testimony as abstracted reads: “In the usual course of our business our company installs propane tanks and lines and all. I have been engaged in the part of the business that concerns the installation of propane lines and facilities for approximately 12 years. During this time I have had occasion to observe copper pipes put through mortar and cement. With reference to what I have noticed about any of these installations with regard to corrosion, I have seen some copper eaten up by corrosion. There is a customary or practical way of avoiding this sort of thing in the business. That is to put a piece of pipe on a sleeve, or wrap the copper where it goes through the foundation. I have seen installations where there was no sleeve involved and it ran through brick or cement. I have seen installations where the copper was not corroded in those situations. As to whether it is only certain kinds of cement that will corrode or eat up a copper tubing, I couldn’t answer that because I don’t know. I don’t know whether it’s a particular kind of mortar or whether all mortar reacts the same way.” In this state, as the majority opinion notes, gas is a dangerous commodity and those who undertake to furnish service, whether installation of facilities or distribution of gas, must exercise a degree of care commensurate with the danger. This the defendant did not do. Accordingly, I dissent from that portion of the majority opinion that affirms a directed verdict on negligent installation issue.