By Thomas Franz
BridgeTower Media Newswires
DETROIT-A Marquette County Circuit Court jury ruled in favor of a man who sustained permanent scarring after a propane explosion in his medical marijuana growing facility.
In Parker, et al. v. U.P. Propane, LLC, the jury awarded $2.5 million for past and future pain and suffering for burns the plaintiff sustained on 45 percent of his body.
"There was very little in the way of economic damages to lost income. The jury really resonated with his pain and disfigurement," said Karl P. Numinen, an attorney with Numinen, DeForge and Toutant PC in Marquette.
Explosion
The plaintiff received four propane cylinders from U.P. Propane on Friday, April 29, 2016. One of the cylinders was 78 years old but was requalified.
The plaintiff placed the cylinders in a storage room of his industrial growing facility and kept them there through the weekend.
When he returned to work on Monday, May 2, the plaintiff immediately smelled gas inside his structure. He entered the facility and identified one propane tank that was partially covered with frost and snow.
The plaintiff moved the cylinder outside before re-entering the building. He then plugged in a fan to air out the room, but minutes later, an explosion occurred.
Although the faulty cylinder was outdoors at the time of the explosion, gas had leaked out of it all weekend and filled the room to create the combustible environment.
Later inspection of the cylinder revealed corrosion of the bottom side along with a pinhole leak.
The plaintiff was burned on 45 percent of his body and spent a month at the University of Michigan Trauma Burn Center.
Pre-trial negligence admission
Two days before the case went to trial, the defense admitted negligence in order to focus on the cause of the explosion.
Defense attorney John McCoy of Waukesha, Wisconsin, said his side chose to admit negligence because even though the cylinder was requalified, there was corrosion that was missed and therefore it shouldn't have met the standard for requalification.
"We didn't want to argue whether or not we met that standard anymore. We were going to concede it, even though it was requalified, they should have caught that rust," McCoy said. "Instead of focusing on that issue, we wanted to focus on what caused the explosion."
McCoy said that strategy helped his side's case, but they anticipated there would be less testimony on the requalification issue during trial than what was presented.
Numinen said the defense's admission didn't help to swing sympathy toward the defendants, and he argued that repentance required more than just an admission of neglect.
"They only barely admitted their guilt and they did nothing to make up for it. In fact, it literally added insult to injury," Numinen said. "When the defendant admits liability begrudgingly but then argues causation and blames the plaintiff, they're really not admitting anything. I think the jury was really fed up with the defense."
Trial turning points
Despite the admission of negligence, the issue of causation was argued throughout the trial.
Numinen said they did admit the plaintiff may have had some contributory negligence, but it wasn't as significant as the leaks in the cylinder.
"The fact of the matter is that (the plaintiff) had been buying propane tanks from this company for years, and they certainly never told him to not bring the tank inside the building and never suggested any other alternative means of using the tanks," Numinen said.
McCoy said his defense strategy was to argue that the cylinder leak wasn't found until many months after the accident and was very minimal.
"There had to be another explanation for why the gas was in that atmosphere and could ignite. That would require human intervention, and in this case, the plaintiff," McCoy said. "It probably would have been accidental, but nonetheless that's what it would have been."
Numinen said the plaintiff's experts were all of the opinion that the tank was defective because of the corrosion that ate away through the tank to create several pinhole leaks.
The jury found the plaintiff to be 20 percent at fault.
"We focused on the defendant and its negligent conduct and its absolute refusal to take any responsibility for their behavior in causing this harm. I think that was the key to allowing the jury to see the danger that U.P. Propane created in our community," Numinen said.
Jury concern
Numinen and plaintiff co-counsel Phillip B. Toutant said they were worried about the fact that their client was growing medical marijuana.
"Even though Proposition 1 just passed, it didn't pass overwhelmingly, and there was lot of concern on jurors' perceptions about medical marijuana, so that was something we had to work hard on from the outset of the case to talk about," Toutant said.
Numinen said they were concerned that if people thought their client was engaged in any kind of criminal behavior, he wouldn't get a personal injury award.
However, a state police investigator's testimony revealed that he is a strong proponent of medical marijuana, and they thought that helped sway the jury.
"As it turned out, we were pleased to find there were very few people who had strong negative feelings about marijuana and, in particular, medical marijuana. Some of the jurors were highly favorable toward the appropriate use of medical marijuana," Numinen said.
Published: Fri, Jan 04, 2019
