Foster v. City of Keyser

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia · Torts

Tortsstrict liabilitynegligenceres ipsa loquiturgovernmental tort claimsnatural gas explosionsnatural gashigh degree of care

Facts

A natural gas explosion occurred in a residence near Beacon Street in Keyser after gas apparently leaked from Mountaineer's underground transmission line, traveled through a nearby sewer line, and entered the house. About six weeks earlier, Parks Excavating, working for the City of Keyser on the sewer line, had uncovered and backfilled around Mountaineer's gas line. A Public Service Commission investigation concluded that movement and strain from Parks' excavation contributed to the failure of a compression coupling, causing the line to separate and leak. The PSC also recommended that Mountaineer revise its inspection procedures for gas transmission lines that could be damaged by excavation activities.

Issue

Whether a gas company is strictly liable for damages caused by gas escaping from its transmission line, and whether claims against a municipality are entirely barred because plaintiffs received first-party insurance proceeds. Also, if strict liability does not apply, what standard governs the gas company's potential liability.

Rule

A distributor of natural gas is not ordinarily subject to strict liability for explosions caused by leaks from transmission lines. Instead, natural gas is a dangerous substance, and a distributor must exercise a high degree of care and diligence to prevent injury and damage from escaping gas; that duty is continuing and nondelegable. When a gas distributor is, or in the exercise of its high duty of care reasonably should be, on notice of excavation or similar activity that could cause leaks, it must take all reasonably feasible actions necessary to protect the integrity of its lines and public safety. Res ipsa loquitur may permit an inference of negligence without proof of a specific negligent act when the event ordinarily does not occur absent negligence, other responsible causes are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence, and the indicated negligence falls within the defendant's duty.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Dayton, Ohio, a buried natural-gas main owned by River Bend Gas leaked after an unexplained underground failure, and gas migrated into a nearby duplex where it exploded. The injured tenants sue River Bend Gas and argue that because natural gas is highly dangerous, the company is liable even if it exercised every possible precaution.

Which is the strongest response under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority rejected ordinary strict liability for natural-gas transmission-line leaks. Instead, a gas distributor owes a high degree of care and diligence commensurate with the danger of escaping gas, and that duty is continuing and nondelegable. The company is not made an insurer simply because gas escaped. (Derived from Foster v. City of Keyser (n.d.).)