Page 1
Court of Appeal:
City Might Be Liable for Injuries From House Exploding
Justice Bedsworth Says Jury Must Decide If Firefighters Were Grossly Negligent in Allowing Persons to Be Near Home After Natural Gas Leak Was Detected; Summary Judgment Based on Immunity Statute Is Reversed
By a MetNews Staff Writer
|
|
|
Above is a screen shot from a KABC report on an exploded home in Murrieta. The Court of Appeal has held that the city might be liable to a worker injured by the explosion. |
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has reinstated an action against a city by a worker who was injured when a home exploded, holding that emergency immunity could be overcome if a jury were to find that firefighters were grossly negligent in failing to clear the area once a natural gas leak had been detected.
The worker, Anthony Borel, was at the home, in Riverside County’s City of Murrieta, on July 15, 2019, to install a solar panel on the roof. A co-worker noticed a gas leak on the outside of the home, telephoned 911 at 10:57 a.m., and at 11:15 a.m., members of the Fire Department arrived.
They lingered after gas company workers came to remediate the leak.
Borel was allowed to approach the home to retrieve his tools. The explosion—occurring inside the house, where the gas had migrated—caused severe injuries to Borel, who was standing by the garage door.
He should not have been allowed to be where he was, Borel argued.
Immunity Statute
Summary judgment was granted to the city based on Health and Safety Code §1799.107 which provides:
“[N]either a public entity nor emergency rescue personnel shall be liable for any injury caused by an action taken by the emergency rescue personnel acting within the scope of their employment to provide emergency services, unless the action taken was performed in bad faith or in a grossly negligent manner.”
In his unpublished opinion filed Thursday, Justice William W. Bedsworth rejected Blount’s contention that §1799.107 does not apply because “imminent peril” was not discerned by the firefighters—saying that they would not have remained on the scene had there not been a prospect of an emergency—but did agree that there was a triable issue as to whether gross negligence had been exhibited.
Bedsworth’s Opinion
He wrote:
“The evidence indicates the firefighters were not aware the gas had migrated inside the home and believed it was dissipating into the atmosphere. As such, they did not think bystanders or any in the vicinity required protection. They were also clearly relying on the Gas Company to remediate the leak. But we are still left to wrestle with the question of why they stayed on the scene. Captain [Shad] Chanley indicated it was policy to do so ‘in case something happen[ed].’ The necessary follow-up question then is: what did they think might ‘happen’? The evidence suggests the fire crew knew there was an ongoing risk from the gas leak and knew what consequences might result. Yet they admit they took no steps to keep people away from the danger. If you were there in case something happened, it is hard to explain why you allowed people inside and next to the house.”
Chanley had allowed an owner of the home, Alexis Haaland, who was initially evacuated from the premises, to go back inside to grab some items. The explosion occurred while she was inside and, although she was virtually unscathed, the explosion caused the death of Wade Kilpatrick, a Southern California Gas Company employee.
Borel was one of 15 persons who were injured.
Reasonable Juror
“Since most people use or own natural gas-powered grills or stoves, and are aware that natural gas ignites easily, we do not think expert testimony is necessary for a reasonable juror to conclude no one should have been permitted within a certain radius of the gas leak,” Bedsworth said, adding:
“Even more egregious, in the eyes of a reasonable juror, could be the decision to allow Mrs. Haaland to go back into the house to retrieve items. Captain Chanley did not know whether the gas leak had been stopped. At the same time, he knew Mrs. Haaland could introduce another potential ignition source through static electricity or through misadventure. It is difficult to reconcile.
“The City may argue the firefighters’ action and lack thereof represents a mere departure from the ordinary standard of care, rather than an extreme one. That may be a successful argument. But a reasonable jury might also conclude this was not a mere departure from the standard of care but a complete abandonment of the standard of care—in other words, gross negligence. We conclude the decision ought to be left to them.”
The case is Borel v. City of Murrieta, G062732.
Copyright 2023, Metropolitan News Company