Foster v. City of Keyser
1997 W. Va. LEXIS 301, 202 W. Va. 1, 501 S.E.2d 165 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Natural gas transmission companies are not strictly liable for damages resulting from gas leaks, but are held to a high degree of care, and negligence may be inferred under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 328D's formulation of res ipsa loquitur. Additionally, West Virginia's Governmental Tort Claims Act bars direct subrogation claims against political subdivisions but allows direct claims by injured parties, subject to an offset for first-party insurance proceeds received.
Facts:
- On September 27, 1993, a natural gas explosion and fire occurred in a residence just outside the city limits of Keyser, West Virginia.
- Mountaineer Gas Company (Mountaineer) provided natural gas service to the residence from a buried transmission line running along the public street.
- The City of Keyser (Keyser) provided sewage service to the residence through a buried sewer pipe along the same street, near the gas line.
- Parks Excavating Company (Parks) was employed by Keyser to excavate and repair Keyser’s sewer line in the area of Mountaineer’s gas transmission line.
- About six weeks before the explosion, Parks uncovered and backfilled around Mountaineer’s gas transmission line.
- Parks claimed it requested constant surveillance from Mountaineer during the excavation, but Mountaineer refused, citing short staffing, although Mountaineer did perform some inspection.
- A West Virginia Public Service Commission (PSC) investigation concluded that movement and strain on the gas transmission line from Parks’ excavation activities contributed to the failure of a compression coupling, leading to a line separation.
- Gas under pressure then flowed through a nearby sewer line into the residence, where it ignited.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (individuals alleging personal and/or property damage) sued Mountaineer Gas Company, the City of Keyser, and Parks Excavating Company in consolidated civil actions in the Circuit Court of Mineral County (trial court).
- Mountaineer, Keyser, and Parks filed cross-claims against each other, seeking indemnity and contribution.
- On August 5, 1996, the Circuit Court of Mineral County granted partial summary judgment as to liability for all plaintiffs against Mountaineer, under a theory of strict liability, relying upon language in Everly v. Columbia Gas of W. Va., Inc..
- On August 22, 1996, the Circuit Court of Mineral County also granted summary judgment on behalf of Keyser, finding that all claims against Keyser were at least in part "subrogation claims" and therefore entirely barred by W.Va.Code, 29-12A-13(c).
- Mountaineer (appellant) subsequently filed the instant appeal, asserting that the circuit court’s two summary judgment rulings regarding Mountaineer and Keyser were erroneous.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does the transmission of natural gas constitute an abnormally dangerous activity warranting the imposition of strict liability for damages caused by leaks? 2. Did the circuit court err in interpreting the Everly case as requiring strict liability for gas companies? 3. Should the res ipsa loquitur doctrine's requirements of "exclusive control" by the defendant and "plaintiff without fault" be modified in light of modern negligence principles? 4. Does W.Va.Code, 29-12A-13(c) completely bar claims against a political subdivision if the injured plaintiff has been compensated by first-party insurance?
Opinions:
Majority - Starcher, Justice
1. No, the transmission of natural gas does not ordinarily warrant the imposition of strict liability for damages from leaks. The circuit court misapplied prior precedent, Everly v. Columbia Gas of W. Va., Inc., which discussed prima facie negligence and res ipsa loquitur, not strict liability. While the "accumulation and use" of combustible gas for a private purpose may be an abnormally dangerous activity leading to strict liability (Peneschi v. National Steel Corp.), the transmission of natural gas is not. Instead, natural gas distributors are required to exercise a high degree of care, commensurate with the inherent danger, and the availability of res ipsa loquitur in appropriate cases sufficiently addresses the concerns that might argue for strict liability. 2. No, the circuit court erred in concluding that Everly v. Columbia Gas of W. Va., Inc. required applying strict liability to Mountaineer. The language in Everly relied upon by the circuit court was part of a discussion about proving prima facie negligence, specifically the application of res ipsa loquitur, and not about strict liability. 3. Yes, the prior formulations of the res ipsa loquitur rule in West Virginia, particularly the "exclusive control" and "plaintiff without fault" requirements (e.g., Syllabus Point 2 of Royal Furniture Co. v. City of Morgantown), are unsatisfactory and are overruled. The Court adopts the formulation found in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 328D. The element of "exclusive control" was often misleading and unhelpful, and the requirement that "the plaintiff must be without fault" directly conflicted with the state's adoption of modified comparative negligence. The Restatement's test provides a fairer, broader, and more generally applicable framework for inferring negligence circumstantially. 4. No, W.Va.Code, 29-12A-13(c) does not entirely bar all claims against a political subdivision by an injured claimant who has received first-party insurance compensation. The statute bars direct claims and recovery "under the right of subrogation" (i.e., claims brought by an insurer directly against the political subdivision). However, it does not bar direct claims by the injured plaintiff. Instead, any recovery by an injured plaintiff from a political subdivision must be offset by the amount of first-party insurance proceeds received as compensation for their injuries or damages. This interpretation is consistent with the statutory purpose of providing financial benefit to political subdivisions without entirely precluding injured parties from seeking redress.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Maynard, Justice
I agree with the majority that the circuit court erred in applying strict liability to Mountaineer, as natural gas companies are already held to a very high standard of care for their operations. However, I disagree with the majority's decision to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in natural gas transmission cases, as I believe it is unnecessary and unfair to defendants, and plaintiffs should be required to prove specific acts of negligence. Furthermore, I dissent from the majority's reversal of the summary judgment granted to the City of Keyser. The trial court was correct in barring all claims against the City, as West Virginia municipalities face significant financial burdens from lawsuits, and the Governmental Tort Claims Act was designed to protect them, an objective which the majority's decision undermines.
Analysis:
This case fundamentally reshapes West Virginia's negligence law regarding the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur by adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 328D, effectively broadening its applicability by removing the rigid "exclusive control" and "plaintiff without fault" requirements. This ensures that plaintiffs in cases involving highly dangerous instrumentalities, like natural gas lines, can prove negligence circumstantially even if specific acts of fault are difficult to pinpoint, aligning state law with modern comparative negligence principles. Concurrently, the decision clarifies the liability of natural gas companies, affirming a "high degree of care" standard while explicitly rejecting strict liability, striking a balance between consumer protection and industry responsibility. Finally, the interpretation of the Governmental Tort Claims Act provides crucial guidance for lawsuits against political subdivisions, limiting direct subrogation by insurers but allowing direct claims by injured parties with an offset for insurance payouts, seeking to mitigate the financial impact on public entities while preserving avenues for victim compensation.
