You are on page 1of 12

FILED

Issue Personal Citation 3/14/2018 11:31 AM


JOHN F. WARREN
COUNTY CLERK
DALLAS COUNTY

CAUSE NO. PR-17-03917-1

ENRIQUE PEDROZA, as Temporary § IN THE PROBATE COURT


Administrator of the Estate of RAUL PEDROZA §
§
§
Plaintiff, §
§
vs. § NO. 3
§
ATMOS ENERGY CORPORATION AND, §
RENFIELD, LLC §
§
Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

______________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION, MOTION FOR LEVEL THREE


DISCOVERY PLAN, AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
______________________________________________________________________________

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

COMES NOW Enrique Pedroza, as Temporary Guardian of the Estate of Raul Pedroza,

(hereinafter “Plaintiff”) complaining of Atmos Energy Corporation and Renfield, LLC

(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

Dallas County, Texas.

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE 1


II.
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

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

that this is a complex, product liability case.

III.
PARTIES

Plaintiff Enrique Pedroza is the court-appointed Temporary Guardian of the Estate of

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

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE 2


action because they are common law and/or statutory causes of action existing under Texas law

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

Defendant have been met.

V.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

On May 14, 2017, Raul Pedroza was seriously burned by a natural gas explosion that

occurred at his residence located at 564 Everett Ave. in Stephenville, Texas.

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE 3


According to the Stephenville Fire Department report, Raul Pedroza was about to cook

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

Parkland Medical Center in Dallas, Texas.

VI.
CAUSES OF ACTION

A. ATMOS

1. STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

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.

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE 4


According to the Stephenville Fire Department report, Raul Pedroza was about to cook

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

Parkland Medical Center in Dallas, Texas.

VI.
CAUSES OF ACTION

A. ATMOS

1. STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY

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.

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE 4


The odorant used by Defendant has a propensity to fade as a result of two different

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

sells and distributes was subject to oxidation and absorption.

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

injuries and damages for which he seeks recovery.

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

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE 5


circumstances. Alternatively, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant owed Raul Pedroza the duty to

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

an unreasonable period of time;

(3) The duty to regularly and periodically check and survey the areas around its lines

for signs of possible leaks;

(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

distributor of natural gas to be too old or no longer effective;

(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.

In addition to other acts of negligence that may be identified as discovery progresses,

Plaintiff would show that Defendant breached its duty to Raul Pedroza by one or more of the

following particulars:

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE 6


(1) Failing to properly maintain its lines and components;

(2) Failing to properly odorize its gas;

(3) Failing to warn Raul Pedroza of the propensities of the odorant used in

Defendant’s gas product to lose its pungent smell;

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

compensate him for such injuries and damages.

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

employee/agent; and/or Defendant was reckless in hiring and/or retaining incompetent

employees and/or agents. This grossly negligent conduct was a proximate cause of the

occurrence in question and the resulting severe injuries of Raul Pedroza.

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE 7


B. RENFIELD, LLC

1. NEGLIGENCE

Defendant Renfield, LLC Defendant acted in violation of multiple established industry

standards and standards of ordinary care in at least the following particular acts and/or

omissions:

• Failing to provide Raul Pedroza with a safe and habitable premises;

• Failing to warn Raul Pedroza of the unsafe condition of the premises;

• Failing to properly maintain and upkeep the premises; and

• Other acts of negligence that will be designated as discovery progresses.

These acts and/or omissions were singularly and/or severally a proximate cause of the

occurrence in question and the severe injuries suffered by Plaintiff.

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

laws and/or regulations, including but not limited to:

• Violations of applicable federal, state and local regulations, laws, codes, and

standards in handling the gas outlet or valve;

• Violations of the International Residential Code; 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

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE 8


• Past and future mental anguish;

• Loss of enjoyment of life;

• Physical impairment; and

• 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

75230, as required following receipt of this request.

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’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE 10


XI.
JURY DEMAND

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;

• Plaintiff’s cost of court and attorneys’ fees;

• Pre-judgment interest at the highest legal rate and for the longest period of time allowed

by law on all elements of damages claimed herein;

• 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.

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE 11


Dated: March 14, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC

/s/ Dean Gresham


Dean Gresham
Texas Bar No. 24027215
Bruce Steckler
Texas Bar No. 00785039
Kirstine Rogers
Texas Bar No. 24033009
12720 Hillcrest Rd.
Suite 1045
Dallas, Texas 75230
972-387-4040
dean@steckler.law.com
bruce@stecklerlaw.com
krogers@stecklerlaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

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

March 14, 2018.

/s/ Dean Gresham


Dean Gresham

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION PAGE 12

You might also like