## Facts

- A residential explosion on February 26, 1977 destroyed the Kannegieter home in Prior Lake, Minnesota, injured the family, and damaged two neighboring homes.
- The explosion was traced to natural gas that escaped from a fractured underground gas main located in the public right-of-way in front of the home.
- The gas main had been installed in 1970 by a contractor under the gas utility’s supervision.
- Over several years, multiple excavations occurred near the main; a contractor twice struck the main while installing water and sewer lines.
- After the first strike severed the pipe, the utility repaired it; after the second strike bent and scraped (but did not sever) the pipe, the utility’s employee wrapped the damaged area with tape and reburied it.
- The leak that led to the explosion occurred at a location some distance from the taped area.
- Homeowners and neighbors sued the gas utility and others; by trial, the case proceeded to the jury only on negligence against the gas utility and the excavation contractor.

## Issues

1. Whether a public gas utility distributing natural gas through underground mains in public streets should be held strictly liable for damages caused by gas escaping from a fractured main.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur against the gas utility where the main fractured and caused an explosion without a specifically proven negligent act.

## Decision

- The court declined to impose strict liability on the gas utility for damages from leaks in gas mains located in public streets.
- The court held it was error to refuse a res ipsa loquitur instruction against the gas utility under the circumstances.
- The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A gas distributor is not an insurer of damages from explosions resulting from leaks in gas mains in public streets; liability is governed by negligence rather than strict liability.
- Because of the dangerous character of natural gas, a gas utility must exercise a high degree of care commensurate with the risk, but this remains a negligence standard.
- Res ipsa loquitur applies when (1) the event ordinarily does not occur absent negligence, (2) the instrumentality is within the defendant’s exclusive or superior control, and (3) the plaintiff did not contribute to the harm.
- For res ipsa loquitur, strict exclusive physical control is not required when the defendant has continuing responsibility for design, installation, inspection, maintenance, and repair of the instrumentality.

## Conclusion

The court refused to convert gas distribution into a strict-liability activity, but required that jurors be permitted to infer negligence from circumstantial evidence where a buried gas main fractured and caused an explosion while the utility retained continuing responsibility for the system.


Mahowald v. Minn. Gas Co., 344 N.W.2d 856 (Minn. 1984) (en banc)