## Facts

- The Zamora family rented and lived in a house in Lynden, Washington.
- On January 26, 1980, a fire occurred, killing five children and injuring the parents and one surviving child who was present.
- The plaintiffs alleged a propane leak caused the fire and that the propane was inadequately odorized, preventing detection of the leak.
- Mobil manufactured and odorized the propane (using an odorant made by Pennwalt) and sold it to Cal Gas.
- Cal Gas resold the propane to Northwest Propane, which supplied propane to the Zamora residence.
- Cal Gas never physically possessed or controlled the propane; its role in the transfer to Northwest was a paper transaction, with Northwest taking delivery directly from Mobil.
- The plaintiffs sued multiple defendants, including Cal Gas, asserting negligence and strict products liability based on defective odorization.

## Issues

1. Whether a propane distributor that never possessed or controlled the propane can be liable in common-law negligence for injuries from a propane-related fire.
2. Whether such a distributor can be strictly liable as a seller within the chain of distribution for an allegedly defective product, and whether proximate-cause questions bar summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment dismissing the negligence claim against Cal Gas.
- The court held, as a matter of law, Cal Gas was not negligent on the undisputed record.
- The court reversed summary judgment on strict products liability.
- The court held Cal Gas could be within the chain of distribution for strict-liability purposes despite never physically handling the propane.
- The court held material fact questions existed on proximate cause, requiring a trial on the strict-liability claim.
- The case was remanded for trial limited to strict products liability and proximate cause.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence liability requires a cognizable duty and breach; a seller’s purely contractual, paper role, without control over manufacture, odorization, transport, or inspection, may be insufficient to establish negligence as a matter of law on an undisputed record.
- Common-law strict products liability can extend to commercial sellers in the distribution system even if they never physically possess or control the product.
- For strict liability, participation in the marketing/distribution chain through purchase-and-resale arrangements may place an entity within the chain of distribution.
- Summary judgment is improper where the record permits reasonable disputes or inferences on proximate cause (including cause-in-fact and legal causation) in a products-liability claim.

## Conclusion

The court relieved the paper distributor of negligence liability on undisputed facts but allowed the strict products-liability claim to proceed, ruling that physical possession is not required for chain-of-distribution strict liability and that proximate cause presented triable factual questions.


Zamora v. Mobil Corp., 704 P.2d 584 (Wash. 1985)