Mateo v. Empire Gas Co., CIVIL NO. 13-1762 (JAG)
| Decision Date | 16 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 13-1762 (JAG) |
| Parties | RAY EMMANUEL MATEO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EMPIRE GAS COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
GARCIA-GREGORY, D.J.
Pending before this Court are co-Defendants Empire Gas Company, Inc. ("Empire Gas" or "Empire") and City Gas, Inc.'s ("City Gas" or "City") (collectively "Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 111, and co-Defendants Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's ("Underwriters") and City Gas's Motion to Bifurcate the liability and damages issues at trial, Docket No. 116.1
This case concerns Plaintiffs' claims of negligence related to the explosion caused by a propane gas leak in the early morning of March 27, 2010.2 Docket No. 70. Plaintiffs allege that the explosion was caused by a hole in the hose that carried propane gas from a cylinder outside their home to the family's stove. Id. Plaintiffs further allege that this leak was caused by thenegligence of co-Defendants Empire Gas, City Gas, and Pedro Dones in, inter alia, failing to properly test the propane gas; failing to give consumers adequate warnings; failing to properly instruct consumers; failing to provide adequate training; failing to properly install the gas cylinder; and failing to properly inspect the gas system. Id. This explosion caused extensive physical and emotional damages to the members of the Andino-Mateo family that were in the house—Jorge Andino, Rafaela Mateo, minor child J.A.M., and minor child C.A.M.—eventually leading to the deaths of Jorge Andino and Rafaela Mateo, as well as mental and emotional damages to other family members—Thelma Isabel Jackson, Meregilda Mateo, and Ray Emmanuel Mateo. Id.
After reviewing the filings and applicable law, Empire and City's' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and the Motion to Bifurcate the liability and damages issues is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Empire Gas is a propane gas wholesaler that distributes liquid propane gas throughout Puerto Rico. Docket No. 112 at 1. City Gas is a filling plant of propane gas affiliated with Empire Gas. Id. Pedro Dones ("Dones") is a licensed and certified independent propane gas vendor, referred to in Puerto Rico as a "gasero." Id. at 2. The 100 lbs. propane gas cylinder related to the events in this case was filled by City Gas on February 19, 2010 for Dones. Id. at 2. On that same date, Dones then connected the relevant cylinder to the existing propane gas system at theAdino-Mateo residence. Id. at 4. Neither Empire Gas nor City Gas sold the subject gas cylinder to Plaintiffs or decedents, or had any part in the installation or connection of the gas cylinder or any other portion of the propane gas system in the Adino-Mateo residence. Id. at 3.
Empire Gas is the number one importer and distributor of propane gas in Puerto Rico. Docket No. 114 at 11. As such, Empire Gas has superior knowledge on the subject of propane gas, including its potential dangers and safety precautions. Docket No. 114 at 11.4 Empire Gas is a member of the National Propane Gas Association ("NPGA") and the Propane Educational Research Counsel ("PERC"). Docket No. 114 at 10-11. Empire attends NPGA and PERC meetings and seminars, where Empire receives educational materials regarding the use of propane gas, adequate warnings, and safety instructions. Docket Nos. 114 at 11; 128 at 16-17
Dones was not given any training from Empire Gas or City Gas regarding the correct installation procedures for a propane gas cylinder, or the dangers of propane gas. Docket No. 114 at 13. The Puerto Rico Public Service Commission ("PSC") is the only local governmental body that regulates the sale and distribution of propane gas in Puerto Rico. Docket No. 112 at 2. The PSC provides gaseros with training and seminars before they are licensed by the PSC. Id. at 4. Defendants contend that at the relevant time, no private entity was authorized to provide formal training or educational seminars to gaseros. Id. However, Plaintiffs disagree, and position thatthis statement only applies to trainings and seminars for licensing purposes, and that Defendants could have provided trainings by simply registering with the PSC. Docket No. 114 at 5-6. Empire Gas acknowledged that it had provided training to gaseros in the past. Docket No. 128-1 at 94-96.
Neither Empire Gas nor City Gas provided any warning to the ultimate consumer that the odorant in the gas would not wake a sleeping person. Docket No. 114 at 16. However, there is no statute or regulation requiring Empire Gas or City Gas to provide this warning. Docket No. 112 at 5.
Motion for Summary Judgment:
A motion for summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is in genuine dispute if it could be resolved in favor of either party, and it is material if it potentially affects the outcome of the case. Calero-Cerezo v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 355 F.3d 6, 19 (1st Cir. 2004).
The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "Once the moving party has properly supported [its] motion for summary judgment, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party . . . ." Santiago-Ramos v. Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp., 217 F.3d 46, 52 (1st Cir. 2000) (citing DeNovellis v. Shalala, 124 F.3d 298, 306 (1st Cir. 1997)). The nonmovant must demonstrate "through submissions of evidentiary quality[] that a trial worthy issue persists." Iverson v. City of Boston, 452 F.3d 94, 98 (1st Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted). In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the court "must view the entire record in the light most hospitable to the party opposing summary judgment, indulging in all reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Griggs-Ryan v. Smith, 904 F.2d 112, 115 (1st Cir. 1990). The court may safely ignore "conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation." Medina-Munoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1990). It is important to note that, throughout this process, courts cannot make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence, as these are jury functions and not those of a judge. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
Defendants claim that the Court should grant summary judgment in their favor because Plaintiffs have not shown that Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs. Docket No. 111.5 The Court disagrees. The Court holds that Defendants owed Plaintiffs the duty to act as a reasonably prudent company under the circumstances. The Court further holds that a reasonable jury could conclude that Defendants breached that duty. Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
Defendants owe a duty of care to Plaintiffs to act as a reasonably prudent person—in the case of Defendants, a reasonably prudent company—would act under the circumstances. Plaintiffs have asserted negligence claims under Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, 31 L.P.R.A. § 5141, against Defendants. Docket No. 70. To prevail under this section, Plaintiffs must prove "(1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of conduct, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) proof of damage, and (4) a causal connection between the damage and the tortious conduct." De-Jesus-Adorno v. Browning Ferris Indus. of Puerto Rico, Inc., 160 F.3d 839, 842 (1st Cir. 1998) ).
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to meet the first element because they have not shown that Defendants owed any duty of care to Plaintiffs. Docket No. 111. In particular, they argue that Plaintiffs have not identified any statute, regulation, or case law that required Defendants to conform their conduct according to Plaintiffs' standards. Id. However, Defendants impose an overly harsh burden on Plaintiffs. The general duty of care under Article 1802 is that "one must act as would a prudent and reasonable person under the circumstances," see Vazquez-Filippetti v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 504 F.3d 43, 49 (1st Cir. 2007) , and "exercise due diligence to avoid foreseeable risks," see Malave-Felix v. Volvo Car Corp., 946 F.2d 967, 971 (1st Cir. 1991) (citing Jimenez v. Pelegrina Espinet, 12 P.R. Offic. Trans. 881, 886 (1982). This duty has been specifically applied to sellers of products. See Carballo-Rodriguez v. Clark Equip. Co., 147 F. Supp. 2d 66, 72 (D.P.R. 2001); see also Doe v. Solvay Pharm., Inc., 350 F. Supp. 2d 257, 263 (D. Me. 2004), aff'd, 153 F. App'x 1 (1st Cir. 2005) ().
The Supreme Court of PR has never specifically considered whether sellers or suppliers of a product must satisfy this general duty of care. Accordingly, this Court must attempt to ascertain how the Puerto Rico Supreme Court would hold. See Michelin Tires, Etc. v. First Nat. Bank of Boston, 666 F.2d 673, 682 (1st Cir. 1981). This Court believes that the Puerto Rico Court would hold that suppliers do have a duty to act as a reasonably prudent company, under the circumstances, to avoid foreseeable risks to all foreseeable users of its product. The Supreme Court has held that under product liability doctrine, any actor in the supply or distribution chain is strictly liable for putting a defective product into the stream of...
To continue reading
Request your trial