This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case arose from a propane gas explosion in a car, which caused injuries to two individuals. The car had been converted to run on propane by Ferrellgas, Inc., but the conversion was incomplete, lacking essential safety features such as a vapor barrier and proper venting. The explosion occurred when propane leaked from a faulty valve in the tank and ignited upon starting the car.
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The jury awarded compensatory damages to the plaintiffs and punitive damages against Ferrellgas, Inc..
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (Ferrellgas, Inc. and its employee): Argued that their actions were not the proximate cause of the accident, that the trial court erred in submitting the issues of punitive damages and strict products liability to the jury, and that the negligence of a third-party mechanic was an independent intervening cause.
- Appellees (Plaintiffs): Claimed that Ferrellgas was negligent in failing to install required safety features, failing to purge the propane tank, and releasing the car in a dangerous condition without warning. They also argued that Ferrellgas's conduct warranted punitive damages due to reckless indifference.
Legal Issues
- Was Ferrellgas's negligence the proximate cause of the accident, or was the third-party mechanic's negligence an independent intervening cause?
- Did the trial court err in submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury?
- Did the trial court err in its handling of strict products liability claims?
Disposition
- The award of punitive damages was reversed.
- The compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiffs were affirmed.
- The court found no prejudicial error in the jury instructions regarding strict products liability.
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Bivins and Minzner JJ. concurring):
-
Proximate Cause: The court held that proximate cause and independent intervening cause are generally questions for the jury. The evidence supported the jury's finding that Ferrellgas's negligence, including the failure to install safety features and warn of the tank's dangerous condition, was a substantial factor in causing the accident. The third-party mechanic's actions did not constitute an independent intervening cause as a matter of law.
-
Punitive Damages: The court found insufficient evidence to support the submission of punitive damages to the jury. While Ferrellgas was negligent, there was no evidence that its employees knew or should have known that the propane tank contained gas, which is necessary to establish the culpable mental state required for punitive damages. The trial court's reasoning that the dangerousness of the product alone justified punitive damages was rejected.
-
Strict Products Liability: The court determined that the jury was not instructed on strict products liability as a separate theory of recovery. The instructions provided were based on negligence principles, and any reference to products liability was not prejudicial to Ferrellgas. Therefore, the court did not address whether strict products liability applied to services or used goods.
-
Conclusion: The court affirmed the compensatory damages award, reversed the punitive damages award, and found no reversible error in the jury instructions.