does he have a case or not ?

**Busyman** · 06-04-2005, 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by vidcc

Originally Posted by Guillaume

No. The guy works in a methane power plant. He knows the smell of methane and should have smelled it in such an enclosed place as the crapper before lighting up.

Methane is odourless unless a chemical is added...however your point is valid.

i wonder if the company has a smoking policy.

Exactly. Cannot decide whether he has a case or not without this info.

If he is not supposed to smoke on the property then the case should be thrown out.

**Everose** · 06-04-2005, 04:34 AM

Damn. The last haven for cigarette smokers blown all to heck.

**bigboab** · 06-04-2005, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by vidcc

MORGANTOWN, West Virginia (AP) -- A man who says he was severely burned when a portable toilet exploded after he sat down and lit a cigarette is suing a general contractor and a coal company, accusing them of negligence.

John Jenkins, 53, and his wife, Ramona Jenkins, 35, of Brave, Pennsylvania, filed the suite Tuesday in county circuit court seeking $10 million in damages from Chisler Inc. and Eastern Associated Coal Corp.

The lawsuit claims Jenkins' face, neck, arms, torso and legs were severely burned last July after the cigarette ignited methane gas leaking from a pipe underneath the toilet unit.

"When I struck the lighter, the whole thing just detonated -- the whole top blew off," said Jenkins, a methane power plant operator with North West Fuels Development Inc. "I can't tell you if it blew me out the door or if I jumped out."

Eastern Associated owns the Blacksville property where the explosion occurred. Jenkins alleges that heavy equipment from Chisler Inc. ran over the pipelines before the explosion, causing the methane gas leak.

A call to the Charleston office of Peabody Energy, the parent company of Eastern Associated Coal, was not returned.

A man who answered the phone at Chisler's office in Fairview said the company would have no comment.

story

Do you think he has a case?

Absolutely no case. If it was a Methane producing factory there would have been a strictly no smoking on the premises policy as with paper factories etc. Plus the fact that he should have known the dangers and the smell of Methane. In fact the factory owners should counter sue him for curing his constipation.

**Guillaume** · 06-04-2005, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by vidcc

Originally Posted by Guillaume

No. The guy works in a methane power plant. He knows the smell of methane and should have smelled it in such an enclosed place as the crapper before lighting up.

Methane is odourless unless a chemical is added...however your point is valid.

's what I meant.
They always add the chemical for security reasons around here (for precisely that one: so that people may smell it and run the feck away if needs be) dunno about the US of A though, my fault.

Edit: second point still stands though

**JPaul** · 06-04-2005, 10:37 AM

I agree with the "smoking policy" point. It is all important whether he was actually allowed to smoke or not.

There is also a factor re what safety training he was given regarding the nature of methane and the potential dangers.

He appears to have a prime facie case, however further details would be required.

**lynx** · 06-04-2005, 01:20 PM

I would have thought there should be methane detectors in areas where a potential build up of methane is likely.

Was he smoking in a non-smoking area? This is of little relevance, it is possible to have a naked flame without smoking. In fact I would suggest that he had not even got as far as actually lighting the cigarette. It may result in a small reduction in the amount of any award.

Did he have a naked flame in a "no-flame" area? This is much more relevant. If so, he was contributory to the incident, and any award should be reduced.

1) If there was a likelihood of methane buildup then either the detectors were absent or not working correctly. The company was negligent and he has a valid claim.
1a) However, if he was in a no-flame area the reduction for contributory negligence would be very high.

2) If there was no likelihood of methane buildup then the location of the incident at a methane power plant is irrelevant. He has a claim in the same way as anyone would have a claim for such an incident in a public place.
2a) However, if the area was a no-flame zone, this would suggest that there was a likelihood of methane buildup. In that case the situation reverts back to situation 1a) but his contributory negligence is reduced because the company did not have a coherent policy.

**Proper Bo** · 06-04-2005, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by lynx

I would have thought there should be methane detectors in areas where a potential build up of methane is likely.

Was he smoking in a non-smoking area? This is of little relevance, it is possible to have a naked flame without smoking. In fact I would suggest that he had not even got as far as actually lighting the cigarette. It may result in a small reduction in the amount of any award.

Did he have a naked flame in a "no-flame" area? This is much more relevant. If so, he was contributory to the incident, and any award should be reduced.

1) If there was a likelihood of methane buildup then either the detectors were absent or not working correctly. The company was negligent and he has a valid claim.
1a) However, if he was in a no-flame area the reduction for contributory negligence would be very high.

2) If there was no likelihood of methane buildup then the location of the incident at a methane power plant is irrelevant. He has a claim in the same way as anyone would have a claim for such an incident in a public place.
2a) However, if the area was a no-flame zone, this would suggest that there was a likelihood of methane buildup. In that case the situation reverts back to situation 1a) but his contributory negligence is reduced because the company did not have a coherent policy.

in short; no if it was his fault

**lynx** · 06-04-2005, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Proper Bo, I tell thee

Originally Posted by lynx

I would have thought there should be methane detectors in areas where a potential build up of methane is likely.

Was he smoking in a non-smoking area? This is of little relevance, it is possible to have a naked flame without smoking. In fact I would suggest that he had not even got as far as actually lighting the cigarette. It may result in a small reduction in the amount of any award.

Did he have a naked flame in a "no-flame" area? This is much more relevant. If so, he was contributory to the incident, and any award should be reduced.

1) If there was a likelihood of methane buildup then either the detectors were absent or not working correctly. The company was negligent and he has a valid claim.
1a) However, if he was in a no-flame area the reduction for contributory negligence would be very high.

2) If there was no likelihood of methane buildup then the location of the incident at a methane power plant is irrelevant. He has a claim in the same way as anyone would have a claim for such an incident in a public place.
2a) However, if the area was a no-flame zone, this would suggest that there was a likelihood of methane buildup. In that case the situation reverts back to situation 1a) but his contributory negligence is reduced because the company did not have a coherent policy.

in short; no if it was his fault

Sorry, I seem to have had a gas buildup.