Jury grants gas explosion victims $4.5M

[ Originally published on: Saturday, October 13, 2007 ]

GREENFIELD -- Two people who were badly burned in a propane explosion in 2002 have been awarded a total of $4.5 million by a Franklin County Superior Court jury -- possibly a record high award for Franklin County.

The trial between the plaintiffs, Carol Russell and George Jolly, and defendant, E. Osterman Gas Service Inc., went on for more than three weeks and when it was finished on Thursday, Russell was awarded $3 million and Jolly $1.5 million.

After more than a day of deliberating, the jury found Osterman negligent in failing to safely deliver the propane that caused the explosion that badly burned both Russell and Jolly. Osterman is a regional gas company based in Whitinsville, with a local branch in Sunderland.

Russell was represented by John J. Stobierski and Danielle Barshak of Stobierski & Stobierski in Greenfield and Jolly by Joseph Swartz of the law firm of Swartz and Swartz of Boston.

Stobierski said Russell had second- and third-degree burns on 27 percent of her body and had to have two skin graft operations.

He said Jolly had burns on his hands, face and neck, and suffered an inhalation injury.

Stobierski said on Friday that Russell's award is the largest award by a Franklin County jury in a civil suit.

Osterman's attorney in the case, John Stewart, was unavailable for comment by press time Friday

In a joint pretrial conference memorandum, Osterman said its position is that the explosion was caused by Jolly's ''foolish act of lighting a cigarette inside a room where he smelled propane gas.''

The statement said that contributing factors were the fact that Jolly was ''likely intoxicated'' and that he and Russell did not pay attention to the instructions on the gas ticket, or use common sense when faced with the smell of gas in Jolly's apartment.

The explosion happened on Aug. 15, 2002, at Jolly's residence at 122 Riverbend St. in Athol.

Stobierski said that Osterman came to deliver propane around 8 a.m. He said Osterman failed to check for an open gas line and failed to conduct an adequate leak check -- either of which would have revealed an open gas line.

''If you miss it, you could turn a house into a bomb, and that is what happened here,'' said Stobierski.

Jolly's attorney, Swartz, said that Jolly was a new account with the gas company and that after filling the tank, the company had an obligation to do a leak-test, according to the company's own policies and to codes in Massachusetts. They also had the obligation to check for open and uncapped gas lines.

There has to be gas in the tank, in order for it to be tested for a leak.

Swartz said after his cross examination, the company admitted it failed to do the test and that it was a violation of its company policy.

''It was an absolute tragedy of an occurrence, in terms of their actions,'' said Swartz. ''It was a blatant, blatant disregard for safety.''

Jolly and Russell discovered the gas later that day, shut off the tank, opened all the windows and doors and left the residence for three hours, according to a statement from Stobierski.

When they returned, they checked all around the house for the smell of gas and were unable to notice any. Jolly tried to light a cigarette which sparked the explosion, according to Stobierski.

''The house became a time bomb,'' said Swartz. He said there is evidence that a cigarette, flicking a light switch, static electricity and more could have caused the explosion.

Stobierski explained that propane is heavier than air and sinks to the floor and loses its odor over time, which both Russell and Jolly did not know.

On Jolly's complaint, the jury found the company 85 percent at fault and Jolly 15 percent at fault.

On Russell's complaint, the jury found the company 98 percent at fault and Russell 2 percent at fault.

The case is still open and there will be further proceedings with respect to Osterman.

The case is still open because both Russell and Jolly have filed 93A claims. Stobierski said 93A is also known as the Consumer Protection Act.

The claims will be heard by Judge Peter A. Velis, who presided over the case, and he will determine the outcome. If he rules in favor, the plaintiffs' awards could be increased by as much as three times.

 

---