Fifth Circuit Reverses $1.7 Million Verdict in Propane Cylinder Flash Fire Case

Reg Reinoso

Author

Product liability cases involving propane tanks can raise complex legal questions, especially when injuries result from unexpected accidents like flash fires. Such was the case in Johnston v. Ferrellgas Inc., where Sidney Johnston sustained burns after a propane cylinder flash fire in 2019. Johnston and his wife sued Ferrellgas, the company responsible for inspecting and filling the propane cylinder, claiming that a defective valve inside the cylinder caused the fire.

Initially, a Fort Worth jury awarded the Johnstons $7 million in damages, which was later reduced by the trial judge. However, in a significant turn of events, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the verdict, finding insufficient evidence that the propane cylinder was defective when it left Ferrellgas’s possession. This decision not only impacted the outcome for the Johnstons but also set an important precedent in the area of product liability and negligence claims involving propane products.

Background Facts and Legal Analysis of the Product Liability Case

In July 2019, Sidney Johnston suffered burns after a propane cylinder he purchased from Lowe’s caused a flash fire while he was grilling. Johnston claimed the fire erupted when he checked the connection between the propane tank and the grill. He and his wife later sued Ferrellgas, alleging that a defective valve in the cylinder caused the fire.

Johnston and his wife brought both product defect and negligence claims against Ferrellgas. They argued that the cylinder’s “face seal,” a component inside the valve, was deteriorated and caused a gas leak, making the product unreasonably dangerous. They also claimed that Ferrellgas failed to properly inspect the cylinder before delivering it to Lowe’s, which would have prevented the accident.

Ferrellgas defended the case by asserting that the propane cylinder was properly inspected and in good condition when it left their possession. It argued that any alleged defect in the valve’s “face seal” could have been caused by Johnston’s handling of the cylinder or by the heat of the fire itself. Additionally, Ferrellgas pointed out that Johnston failed to follow the safety warnings on the propane cylinder, including leaving the burner on while checking the tank connection and using the cylinder out of its proper position. This, they argued, contributed significantly to the incident.

The jury initially found Ferrellgas 93% at fault for the incident and awarded the Johnstons $7 million in damages. However, the trial judge intervened, using a process called remittitur to reduce the award to $1.7 million. 

However, on appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals completely reversed the jury’s verdict. The court found that the Johnstons had failed to prove that the propane cylinder was defective when it left Ferrellgas’s possession. A critical moment in the case came when the Johnstons’ own expert admitted on cross-examination that he could not confirm whether the face seal was defective at the time of sale. Without this evidence, the court ruled there was no basis for the jury to find Ferrellgas liable for a product defect. Consequently, the negligence claim, which was tied to proving the defect, also failed and the plaintiffs were unable to recover any damages from this incident. 

Please note this article is for informational purposes and is not a substitute for legal advice.