Simviation Forums

Man Sues Over Exploding Porta-Potty
Posted 6/2/2005 08:20 AM

The lawsuit alleges Pennsylvania man was injured when methane gas leaked into the toilet and ignited when he lit a cigarette.
Story by The Associated Press

A Pennsylvania man injured when a portable toilet exploded is suing a general contractor and a coal company for negligence.

John Jenkins, 53, and his wife, Ramona Jenkins, of Brave, Pa., filed the lawsuit in Monongalia County Circuit Court in Morgantown on Tuesday. They are suing Chisler Inc., a general contractor from Fairview, and Eastern Associated Coal for $10 million.

The explosion occurred July 13, 2004, at Parrish Shaft in Blacksville. Jenkins is a North West Fuels Development methane power plant operator. He entered a portable toilet, sat down and tried to light a cigarette. When he struck the lighter, the toilet exploded.

The lawsuit says the cigarette ignited methane gas leaking from a pipe underneath the unit.

Eastern Associated Coal owns the property where the explosion occurred. Jenkins alleges Chisler ran over the pipelines with heavy equipment before the incident, causing the methane gas leak.

Jenkins had severe burns on his face, neck, arms, torso and legs. The lawsuit says he is permanently disfigured.

(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

sure, blame it on the pipeline....

mabye he just had a bad bean burrito??

Ramos

Honestly, everybody knows those things could be filled with methane gas at any time.  You want to strike a ****ing match in a porta potty that could be filled with methane, be my guest.  It's called "natural selection".



I'll give him this-they should have warning signs on them that say "no smoking" or something, it's long overdue.

Yeah! We need warnings for everything!  ::)

Seems like they don't teach much common sense these days do they?  :(

Yeah! We need warnings for everything!  ::)

Seems like they don't teach much common sense these days do they?  :(

True, but one doesn't expect the toilet to blow up underneath one when lighting up. If he was in the UK he would without doubt win this case (although he wouldn't get 10million for it) as
1) A duty of care is required,
2) This obviously wasn't suficient and an accident happened. (Breach of duty) due to a dangerous methane leak.
3) During the accident the man suffered very serious injuries.

The company is therefore liable for negligence.
Man, this is a strong case you ask me anyway in a UK court. If it can be proved that it was such a stupid thing, smoking on the loo, (I am unsure how safe/unsafe or normal/rediculous etc this is) then he will still be awarded damages howbeit reduced for contributory negligence.

True, but one doesn't expect the toilet to blow up underneath one when lighting up. If he was in the UK he would without doubt win this case

Depends where the toilet is.

The explosion occurred July 13, 2004, at Parrish Shaft in Blacksville. Jenkins is a North West Fuels Development methane power plant operator. He entered a portable toilet, sat down and tried to light a cigarette. When he struck the lighter, the toilet exploded.

It's not unusual for people to nip into the toilet while at work for a quick smoke. This might be fine in most places but this was apparently a portable toilet in a place where they manufacture methane gas.

The article doesn't state who was responsible for the toilet. Maybe it should have had a big No Smoking sign on the door but as an employee of the company this man should have been well aware of the risks of smoking anywhere on the site. From experience of a local pharmaceuticals plant*, matches & cigarette lighters are not allowed to be taken onto the premises. This is strictly enforced as an accident could blow up half of Worthing.

*GlaxoSmithKline (formerly Beecham Pharmaceuticals) at Worthing.

Considering the slang for it, why wouldn't he pull his "butt" out in there... and he wanted a light, didn't he? I'd say he really lit things up, even if he did feel like crap afterward.
Sorry to make him the butt of a joke (if) and truly sorry that someone really got hurt. In my experience, however, "No Smoking" signs are frequently ignored. I've known people to explicitly ask for a non-smoking room then find cigarette smoke seeping out around the doorjamb.

I'd say he really lit things up, even if he did feel like crap afterward.

LOL I reckon he was lucky to only blow himself up. Who in their right mind would try to light a cigarette anywhere near a methane gas plant, let alone on the premises? I have visions of the whole place being blown to smithereens & goodness knows how many other poor souls with it. Suing someone for his own stupidity seems like a joke to me but sadly this is common practice these days.

Many years ago I worked in a remote mining area and the accomodation available at the time was a caravan park(trailer park?).

Families were also in the park and ages varied amongst the children from newborn to teenage(obvious you say but this was not some place you took the family for a holiday).

So one teenager takes up smoking without parental consent and apart from work one place to smoke in the park was while having a s**t.

Finish s**t,finish smoke,drop butt between legs into bowl=boom

Don't smoke in the toilet.

True story-Dad let him smoke in the caravan after he got out of hospital.

Colin

this guy win or loose will look like an ass to his workers from here on out just through common sense with his job. This case should be thrown out again as common sense would have prevented this. The sooner these stupid lawsuits are banned the better.

Well I don't the important details, or safty standards and rules and regs of the place. All I am saying is, at face value, he stands to win. Obviously, if smoking was banned there, he would never succeed and actually he would be liable! But the fact he is suing and at face value reading it appears as if there was a fault with the equipment and this happened. The company holding the toilet is resposnisble for ensuring it is safe.

There is a very famous case of negligence with toilets, different, but it shows how strict these things are. (now I know this is was all in the US and I am applying English law and therefore this is rather silly, but I am saying how I think it would get treated in the UK). Anyway here is the case:

 

Sayers v  Harlow UDC [1958]      

[Tort - foreseeability of damage - contributory negligence]
D a local authority provided public toilets. When C tried to leave the cubicle, she found the handle was missing. After trying for fifteen minutes to attract attention, she tried to climb out by standing on the toilet roll holder, but the roll rotated and C slipped and fell, injuring herself.

She was awarded damages, howbeit, they were reduced as she contributed to her injuries by relying on the roll.

Yeah! We need warnings for everything!  ::)

No, we don't. I could do without all those idiots in the world. Simply let them die if they're too dumb.

Well I don't the important details, or safty standards and rules and regs of the place. All I am saying is, at face value, he stands to win. Obviously, if smoking was banned there, he would never succeed and actually he would be liable! But the fact he is suing and at face value reading it appears as if there was a fault with the equipment and this happened. The company holding the toilet is resposnisble for ensuring it is safe.

This is the problem when you get the legal people involved. I don't know the circumstances either but  it seems quite clear that this portable toilet had been put there for the use of people working at the plant. Anyone familiar with this type of plant will know that there are usually hundreds of warning notices plastered everywhere in sight stating something like; Highly Flammable Gas. No Smoking or Naked Flames on These Premises. All employees of the company are made aware of this & other safety measures before they are taken on & this will be stated in their contract of employment which they sign as having understood. Visitors should also made aware of hazards & safety precautions before being allowed on the site. There is no excuse for anyone on the site, especially company employees, being unaware of the hazardous nature of the product.

Now I assume that as there was no actual No Smoking sign on the toilet itself this chap got the idea it would be a little haven & quite safe for him to smoke in there. I don't how the law will see this but it seems quite obvious to me that this could not possibly be the case. I'm not sure it's a good idea to smoke in a portable toilet even in a perfectly safe location & wonder what the regulations are on that.

You know, they just did an episode of Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel about this very thing.  They proved it was impossible to happen...  

What was impossible? To smoke on a loo and blow the place up?

Re : Doug - I am pretty sure under English law, unless it could be proved he was flouncing the rules ( I have no idea as I have never been in such a place or more importantly that particular place) and can't say. I am assuming he was abiding by the rules.