Case details

Propane company’s employee caused explosion, plaintiff alleged

SUMMARY

$950000

Amount

Settlement

Result type

Not present

Ruling
KEYWORDS
face, nose
FACTS
On May 22, 2017, plaintiff Raul Retamoza, 68, a retiree, informed an employee of Wildhorse Propane & Appliance that he smelled the scent of gas around his home. Retamoza had previously reported to Wildhorse Propane that his propane tank was empty. As a result, the company’s propane delivery driver arrived at Retamoza’s home and filled the propane tank on May 22, 2017. However, the employee did not relight the pilot lights. A short time after the employee left, Retamoza tried to light the pilot and an explosion occurred, causing approximately $180,000 in damages to the home. Retamoza sustained to his face, hands and shoulders. Retamoza sued the employee who filed the propane tank, Raul Lizarraga, and the operator of Wildhorse Propane & Appliance, M-K-S Dodson Inc. Retamoza claimed that Lizarraga was negligent in his performance of the propane service and that M-K-S Dodson was liable for the employee’s actions while in the course and scope of his employment. The property damage claim was settled separately with the insurance carrier. Plaintiff’s counsel maintained that the explosion was caused by a leak in the system and that Lizarraga failed to conduct a pressure test, which would have detected the leak. Counsel contended that after an out-of-gas situation, the National Fire Protection Association requires service technicians to bleed the line prior to relighting pilot lights and noted that employees of M-K-S Dodson claimed that this procedure was required and standard. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that Lizarraga was negligent for failing to follow both industry standards and M-K-S Dodson’s own published company policies by failing to conduct a pressure test to determine if there was a leak in the system. Counsel also contended that Lizarraga failed to lock out the system for use until a pressure test could be conducted and failed to check the appliances before restoring service. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel contended that Lizarraga failed to light the pilot lights for Retamoza and failed to notify the homeowners of the risks involved after a propane tank runs empty. Defense counsel contended that after the propane tank was filled, Retamoza refused to allow Lizarraga to enter his home to relight the pilot lights and that, instead, Retamoza offered to relight his own pilot lights. Counsel also contended that Retamoza claimed that he was proficient in residential home improvement projects, testifying in depositions that he had personally lit pilot lights on his appliances numerous times in the 27 years that he lived in the home prior to the incident. Defense counsel maintained that Retamoza admittedly disconnected the propane line in an enclosed room before attempting to light the pilot light using an ignition switch that Retamoza had installed and had improperly grounded. Counsel asserted that the thermal blast was not caused by a leak in the system that would have been detected by a pressure test, but was caused by Retamoza’s own negligence. In response, plaintiff’s counsel contended that Lizarraga failed to document any alleged refusal to provide access to the property to conduct the required testing. Counsel also asserted that Retamoza did not contribute to the explosion and that, after the restoration of his gas service, Retamoza should never have been left alone to relight the pilot lights., Retamoza sustained severe burns to his face, hands and shoulders. He was airlifted to the burn unit at Community Regional Medical Center, in Fresno. Retamoza was unable to use his hands for basic functions for nearly 10 months. His wife, Ana Retamoza, had to take medical leave from work so that she could care for all of her husband’s daily functions during that time. In addition, the Retamozas were displaced from their home for approximately 10 months while it was undergoing repairs. Mr. Retamoza was left with keloid scarring on both hands. He claimed that, because of the scarring, he has limited range of motion in his hands, more so in the right hand than his left. He also claimed that surgical intervention is not an option and that his hands will remain permanently disfigured.
COURT
Superior Court of Monterey County, Monterey, CA

Recommended Experts

NEED HELP? TALK WITH AN EXPERT

Get a FREE consultation for your case