## Facts

- James and Louisa Van Hoose were injured and their home damaged in a propane gas explosion in Pueblo County, Colorado.
- The propane was produced and distributed by Phillips Petroleum Company and Diamond Shamrock Corporation and sold to the Van Hooses by Blueflame Gas, Inc.
- The Van Hooses alleged the propane was inadequately odorized with ethyl mercaptan, defeating the product’s warning function and preventing detection of leaks.
- They asserted negligence based on failure to odorize as required by state regulation, failure to test for proper odorization before sale, and failure to warn of inadequate odorization.
- They also asserted strict products liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, alleging inadequate odorization made the propane defective and unreasonably dangerous.
- Defendants denied liability; contributory negligence was asserted as a defense to the negligence claim.
- The trial court refused plaintiffs’ requested instruction that those controlling exceptionally dangerous instrumentalities must take precautions commensurate with the risk, and instead instructed only a general “reasonable care” standard.
- The jury returned defense verdicts on both negligence and strict liability; the court of appeals reversed and ordered a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the negligence instructions were erroneous for failing to explain that suppliers of highly dangerous propane must exercise care commensurate with the risk, including compliance with odorization/testing requirements.
2. Whether the strict-liability instructions misstated or obscured the elements and burden of proof for a § 402A claim based on inadequate odorization (defect, unreasonably dangerous condition, existence at time of leaving defendants’ control, and causation).

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals and ordered a new trial.
- The negligence instructions were inadequate because they did not convey that reasonable care varies with the degree of danger and that propane suppliers must take special precautions commensurate with the risk.
- The strict-liability instructions were erroneous because they risked confusing the defect/unreasonably dangerous inquiry and improperly elevating the plaintiffs’ burden of proof.
- The case was remanded for retrial with separate, correctly framed instructions for negligence and strict products liability.

## Legal Principles

- “Reasonable care” is a variable standard; for exceptionally dangerous instrumentalities, the required degree of care increases in proportion to the risk of serious harm.
- Violation of a safety regulation is not strict liability per se, but it is substantial evidence of negligence and informs the duty of care owed.
- Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, strict liability focuses on the product’s condition, not the supplier’s due care.
- Inadequate odorization of propane can constitute a product defect when odorization is necessary to provide a warning function essential to safe use.
- In a § 402A claim, plaintiffs must prove the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous when it left the defendant’s control and that the defect proximately caused the injury; instructions should not suggest plaintiffs must negate all alternative explanations.
- Negligence and strict liability are distinct theories and require clear, differentiated jury instructions even when based on overlapping facts.

## Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court held that defense verdicts could not stand because the jury was not properly instructed on the heightened negligence duty applicable to suppliers of propane and on the elements and burden of proof for § 402A strict liability based on inadequate odorization, requiring a new trial under correct instructions.


Blueflame Gas, Inc. v. Van Hoose, 679 P.2d 579 (Colo. 1984)