Blueflame Gas, Inc. v. Van Hoose
Colorado Supreme Court
679 P.2d 579 (1984)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
James and Louisa Van Hoose (consumers) (plaintiffs) sued Phillips Petroleum Company (Phillips), Diamond Shamrock Corporation (Shamrock), and Blueflame Gas, Inc. (Blueflame) (defendants), for damages that resulted from a propane-gas explosion in the consumers’ home. The consumers specifically alleged that the propane in their tank was not properly odorized, as required by applicable regulations, nor was their tank tested before it was sold to them, nor were they properly warned about the tank’s inadequate odorization. At trial, the consumers requested a jury instruction that defined the applicable standard of care to be proportional to the degree of danger involved and that those who control exceptionally dangerous instrumentalities must take exceptional precautions to prevent injuries from those dangerous instrumentalities. The trial court refused the instruction and instead instructed the jury that negligence is the failure to use reasonable care. The jury returned verdicts in favor of Phillips, Shamrock, and Blueflame, and the consumers appealed. The court of appeals found that the trial court’s standard-of-care instruction was erroneous and reversed the decision below and ordered a new trial. Phillips, Shamrock, and Blueflame appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Quinn, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 782,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
