Professional Documents
Culture Documents
______________________________________________________________________________
COMES NOW Enrique Pedroza, as Temporary Guardian of the Estate of Raul Pedroza,
(hereinafter referred to as “Defendants”) and would respectfully show unto the Honorable Court
the following:
I.
NOTICE OF RELATED ACTION
Pursuant to Dallas County Local Rule 1.07, Plaintiff’s counsel hereby provides notice
that this case is RELATED TO the matter styled Estate of Raul Garcia Pedroza, an
Incapacitated Person; Cause No. PR-17-03219-3; already pending in the Probate Court No. 3 of
Pursuant to Rules 190.1 and 190.3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff
respectfully requests that discovery in this cause is intended to be conducted under Level 3 given
III.
PARTIES
Raul Pedroza who was treated at Parkland Hospital’s inpatient burn unit for several months. A
temporary guardianship has been established for Raul Pedroza by this Court.
Defendant Atmos Energy Corporation is a Texas corporation formed and doing business
in Texas. Defendant Atmos has its principal place of business located at Three Lincoln Centre,
Suite 1800, Dallas, TX 75240 and can be served with citation and a copy of this petition by
serving its registered agent in Texas: Corporation Service Company d/b/a/ CSC-Lawyers
Incorporating Service Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701-3218.
Defendant Renfield, LLC is a Texas limited liability company doing business in the State
of Texas. Defendant Renfield, LLC can be served with citation and a copy of this petition by
serving its registered agent in Texas: Rendell Burdick, at 230a W. College St., Stephenville,
Texas 76401.
IV.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Venue is proper in this district as Defendant Atmos’ principal office is located in Dallas
County. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 15.002(a)(3). This Court has jurisdiction over this
action pursuant to Article V Section 8 of the Texas Constitution and section 24.007 of the Texas
Government Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over all claims asserted in this
by which Plaintiff seeks damages that are within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. This
Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because its principal place of business is located
in Dallas County, Texas. All conditions precedent to the bringing of this action against
V.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On May 14, 2017, Raul Pedroza was seriously burned by a natural gas explosion that
lunch and turned on the gas stove and the explosion occurred. There was no smell to indicate that
gas was leaking into his home when the explosion occurred. As a result of the explosion, Raul
Pedroza was seriously burned over 70 percent of his body. He was airlifted via helicopter to
VI.
CAUSES OF ACTION
A. ATMOS
In connection with this cause of action, Raul Pedroza would show that at all times
material hereto, Defendant was the seller and distributor of natural gas which is a “product” for
purposes of the application of the strict liability doctrine pursuant to the Restatement (Second) of
Torts section 402A (1965). In its natural state, gas has no odor and cannot otherwise be detected
by normal human olfactory senses. Defendant mixes its gas with an odorant, such as Ethyl
Mercaptan or some other chemical which is intended to give gas a pungent odor.
lunch and turned on the gas stove and the explosion occurred. There was no smell to indicate that
gas was leaking into his home when the explosion occurred. As a result of the explosion, Raul
Pedroza was seriously burned over 70 percent of his body. He was airlifted via helicopter to
VI.
CAUSES OF ACTION
A. ATMOS
In connection with this cause of action, Raul Pedroza would show that at all times
material hereto, Defendant was the seller and distributor of natural gas which is a “product” for
purposes of the application of the strict liability doctrine pursuant to the Restatement (Second) of
Torts section 402A (1965). In its natural state, gas has no odor and cannot otherwise be detected
by normal human olfactory senses. Defendant mixes its gas with an odorant, such as Ethyl
Mercaptan or some other chemical which is intended to give gas a pungent odor.
chemical reactions. One of these chemical reactions is called “oxidation.” If Ethyl Mercaptan
molecules come into contact with an oxidizing agent like rust, including rust in pipelines, the
process changes the molecules so that it has a less pungent odor. The other chemical reaction is
called “absorption.” When absorption occurs, Ethyl Mercaptan will adhere to or be absorbed by
or other substances thus becoming unavailable for detection. As a seller or distributor of this
product, Defendant knew, or in the exercise of care, should have known that the natural gas it
Plaintiff would show that prior to May 14, 2017, Defendant failed to warn Raul Pedroza
the odorant used in its gas product could become undetectable to normal human olfactory senses.
Such failure on the part of Defendant rendered its gas product defective or unreasonably
dangerous. Such defective or unreasonably dangerous product proximately caused the injuries to
Raul Pedroza as set forth below. As such, Defendant is strictly liable to Raul Pedroza for his
2. NEGLIGENCE
In selling and distributing its gas through its pipelines, including those located at 564
Everett Ave. in Stephenville, Texas, Defendant owed Raul Pedroza the duty to exercise care to
protect him from injuries from the escape or explosion of its gas from its lines. Raul Pedroza
alleges that Defendant, in view of the highly dangerous character of gas and its known tendency
to escape, must use a high degree of care to prevent damage commensurate to the danger which
it is its duty to avoid. That is, Defendant was required to use that degree of care that would have
been used by a very cautious, competent and prudent person under the same or similar
exercise that ordinary care that would be exercised by a reasonable and prudent seller and
distributor of natural gas as authorized or permitted by the State of Texas through its regulations
and statutes. Such duties include but are not limited to:
(1) The duty to regularly inspect its pipes and all components used to connect its
lines;
(2) The duty to replace such pipes and components which have been underground for
(3) The duty to regularly and periodically check and survey the areas around its lines
(4) The duty to promptly repair any leaks found in its lines;
(5) The duty to replace any parts or components considered by a prudent seller or
(6) The duty to replace any parts or components utilized in its lines which are deemed
by the state regulatory authorities to be too old, defective, ineffective, or unsafe; and
(7) The duty to warn members of the public, including Raul Pedroza, of the
propensities of the odorants used in its gas product to lose its odorant qualities and thus prevent
people like Plaintiff from detecting the presence of such gas product.
Plaintiff would show that Defendant breached its duty to Raul Pedroza by one or more of the
following particulars:
(3) Failing to warn Raul Pedroza of the propensities of the odorant used in
Plaintiff would show that Defendant’s breach of duty to Raul Pedroza in the, manner set forth
above, constitutes negligence, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries
and damages suffered by Raul Pedroza as more specifically described herein. Plaintiff is,
therefore, entitled to recover from Defendant such sums as would properly and appropriately
3. GROSS NEGLIGENCE
The acts and/or omissions of Defendant, when viewed objectively from the standpoint of
Defendant at the time of the occurrence, involved an extreme risk, considering the probability,
magnitude and potential harm to others; and of which, Defendant had actual, subjective
awareness of the risks involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the
rights, safety, and welfare of the public, including Raul Pedroza. Further, gross negligence can
be imputed to Defendant because: the gross negligence acts were committed by Defendant’s
employees and/or agents. This grossly negligent conduct was a proximate cause of the
1. NEGLIGENCE
standards and standards of ordinary care in at least the following particular acts and/or
omissions:
These acts and/or omissions were singularly and/or severally a proximate cause of the
2. NEGLIGENCE PER SE
Both federal and state laws impose duties and obligations on landlords such as Renfield,
LLC. Failure to comply with these requirements constitutes negligence as a matter of law. Upon
information and belief, Defendant Renfield, LLC violated or failed to abide by the following
• Violations of applicable federal, state and local regulations, laws, codes, and
• Violation of section 7.7 of the applicable National Fuel Gas Code, among others; and
• Violation of section 404.13 of the International Fuel Gas Code, among others.
Defendant Renfield, LLC knew or should have known that its inspection, maintenance,
service, modification, installation, repair or other work on the premises was unsafe. Plaintiff did
• Disfigurement.
VIII.
PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST
Plaintiff seeks recovery for pre-judgment interest at the highest legal rate allowed by law.
IX.
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES AND PRIVILEGE LOG
Pursuant to TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 194, Defendants are requested to disclose
the information and material described in Rule 194.2. The written responses to the above
requests for disclosure should conform to Rule 194.3 and the materials, documents, and/or copies
of the same should be produced in compliance with Rule 194.4. Also, pursuant to Rule 193.3 of
the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, you are hereby requested to produce, within fifteen (15)
days of service of this request, a privilege log setting forth all documents you are withholding from
production based upon privilege. The written responses, materials and documents are to be
delivered to the STECKLER–GRESHAM–COCHRAN, 12720 Hillcrest Rd., Suite 1045, Dallas, Texas
X.
DOCUMENTS TO BE USED
Pursuant to Rule 193.3(d) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff intends to use
all documents exchanged and/or produced between the parties including, but not limited to,
correspondence and discovery responses, during the trial of the above-entitled and numbered
cause.
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury and has paid the appropriate fee.
XII.
PRAYER
Plaintiff prays that the Defendants be summoned to appear and answer herein and that
upon a full and final hearing of this case, Plaintiff has judgment of and from the Defendants, as
follows:
• All actual and special damages, both past and future, as prayed for herein;
• Exemplary damages;
• Pre-judgment interest at the highest legal rate and for the longest period of time allowed
• Post-judgment interest at the highest legal rate allowed by law on the amount of the
judgment entered by the Court from the date of judgment until collected; and
• Such other further relief, both general and specific, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff
is entitled.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served in
accordance with Rule 21a of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE on all counsel of record on