Mahowald v. Minnesota Gas Co.
1984 Minn. LEXIS 1273, 344 N.W.2d 856 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A distributor of natural gas is not strictly liable for damages resulting from a leak in its mains located in a public street; however, in a negligence action, an injured party is entitled to a res ipsa loquitur instruction, which permits the jury to infer negligence because the gas company has a non-delegable responsibility to maintain and inspect its lines.
Facts:
- In November 1970, Minnesota Gas Company (Minnegasco) installed a gas main in the public right-of-way in front of the lot where the Kannegieter residence would later be built.
- On April 30, 1974, a contractor, Barbarossa and Sons, struck and severed a gas main in the area while installing city water and sewer lines, which Minnegasco repaired.
- On May 15, 1974, Barbarossa again struck the gas main, scraping and bending it approximately 16 feet from where the explosion-causing fracture would later occur; Minnegasco inspected, wrapped, and reburied the pipe.
- Between 1974 and 1976, various other contractors, including a home builder and a plumbing company, performed excavation and construction work on the Kannegieter lot.
- In September 1976, Alice and Michael Kannegieter and their children moved into their newly constructed home.
- On the morning of February 26, 1977, the Kannegieter home exploded when Alice Kannegieter attempted to start her car, resulting in the total destruction of the home and personal injuries to the family.
- An investigation determined that the explosion was caused by a fractured gas main, which allowed natural gas to leak and accumulate in the home.
- An expert witness testified that the pipe fractured due to corrosion and stress from a prior hit, but was unable to identify which specific hit caused the eventual failure.
Procedural Posture:
- The Kannegieters (plaintiffs) filed suit in a Minnesota trial court against Minnesota Gas Company and several other defendants, including contractors.
- At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case, the trial court granted directed verdicts in favor of all defendants except Minnegasco and one contractor, Barbarossa.
- The trial court refused the plaintiffs' request to instruct the jury on theories of strict liability and res ipsa loquitur, submitting the case on negligence only.
- The jury returned a verdict finding that neither Minnegasco nor Barbarossa was negligent.
- The Kannegieters (appellants) appealed the judgment to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a negligence action against a natural gas distributor for damages caused by a gas leak from a main in a public street where the specific cause of the leak is unknown, does the trial court's refusal to give a res ipsa loquitur instruction constitute reversible error?
Opinions:
Majority - Kelley, J.
Yes, the trial court's refusal to give a res ipsa loquitur instruction constitutes reversible error. The court declined to overrule its precedent and impose strict liability on a gas distributor for leaks from mains in public streets, distinguishing this situation from cases involving abnormally dangerous activities where the defendant has true exclusive control over the instrumentality of harm. Gas mains in public rights-of-way are accessible to numerous third parties, so exclusive control in the traditional sense is absent. However, for the purposes of res ipsa loquitur, the 'exclusive control' element should be interpreted flexibly. Because a gas company has a non-delegable responsibility to maintain and inspect its lines, this constitutes sufficient control to warrant a res ipsa loquitur instruction. Gas explosions do not ordinarily occur without negligence, and the gas company is in a superior position to investigate and explain the cause of the leak. Therefore, the jury should be permitted, though not required, to infer negligence from the fact of the explosion.
Dissenting - Todd, J.
No, the court should not rely on a confusing redefinition of res ipsa loquitur but should instead overrule its prior precedent and impose strict liability on the gas company. The historical policy of shielding a developing industry from liability is obsolete. Distributing natural gas is an abnormally dangerous activity under the Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 519-520. It is unjust to place the difficult and expensive burden of proving a specific act of negligence on an innocent victim. As the party profiting from the enterprise, the gas company is in the best position to bear and distribute the loss among all its customers, and it can seek reimbursement from any third-party tortfeasors. Imposing strict liability provides a clear and fair remedy, whereas the majority's application of res ipsa loquitur is an illogical and ineffective 'half of the loaf' solution.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the negligence standard for gas distributors in Minnesota, rejecting a move toward strict liability for this specific activity. The case's primary significance lies in its flexible application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. By redefining 'exclusive control' as the non-delegable duty to maintain and inspect, the court created a vital tool for plaintiffs in cases where direct evidence of a gas company's negligence is unavailable. This effectively shifts the practical burden of explanation to the utility company, making it easier for victims of gas explosions to survive summary judgment and have their cases decided by a jury.
Unlock the full brief for Mahowald v. Minnesota Gas Co.