A Louisiana court recently dismissed strict liability claims against XTO Energy, Inc. in a case involving a tragic explosion at a propane facility. The ruling affects several plaintiffs, including family members of a deceased worker. This decision is significant as it clarifies the application of strict liability in Louisiana law.
The case, known as George Reagan Hardaway, Neely Hardaway, Cassie Hardaway, and Rayla Hardaway McKissack v. Aeropres Corporation, was filed in the Louisiana Court of Appeal under docket numbers 56,894-CW, 56,895-CW, and 56,896-CW. The court rendered its judgment on September 30, 2026, after reviewing the circumstances surrounding a flash fire and explosion that occurred at a propane storage facility operated by Aeropres Corporation.
The plaintiffs in this case include George Hardaway and his family, as well as the families of other workers affected by the explosion. The incident took place on May 9, 2022, when employees were transferring propane from a storage tank into a tanker truck. A hose began leaking propane, leading to a catastrophic explosion that severely injured Hardaway and another worker, Daniel Payne. Tragically, a third employee, Chancey Hawk, later died from his injuries.
Initially, the plaintiffs filed separate petitions for damages against Aeropres, claiming various forms of negligence and strict liability. They later added XTO Energy as a defendant, alleging that the company owned the facility and supplied the propane involved in the explosion. The case was consolidated in the 26th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Webster, Louisiana, where Judge Frank H. Thaxton, III presided.
XTO Energy responded to the allegations by denying all claims and filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that strict liability did not apply in this case. The company contended that under Louisiana law, strict liability only applies under specific circumstances that were not present in this situation. The trial court denied XTO's motion on November 7, 2025, prompting the company to seek a review from the Louisiana Court of Appeal.
In its ruling, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, with Judge Marcotte presiding, reversed the trial court's decision. The court noted that the plaintiffs had indicated during oral arguments that they no longer wished to pursue their strict liability claims against XTO. The court stated, "Because plaintiffs have said that they are abandoning their strict liability claims against XTO, we reverse the trial court and grant XTO’s motion for partial summary judgment on strict liability." This ruling effectively dismissed the plaintiffs' strict liability claims against XTO with prejudice, meaning they cannot be brought again in the future.
The impact of this ruling is significant for the plaintiffs, as it removes XTO Energy from liability in this case. The decision clarifies the standards for strict liability in Louisiana, particularly in cases involving industrial accidents. This ruling may influence future cases where strict liability is claimed, as it underscores the necessity for plaintiffs to meet specific legal criteria to establish such claims.
Going forward, the plaintiffs may still pursue their claims against Aeropres Corporation, as they indicated their intention to focus on those claims. The dismissal of the strict liability claims against XTO does not affect the remaining allegations against Aeropres, which could still lead to potential compensation for the injured workers and the families of those who lost their lives in the explosion.
As for the possibility of an appeal, the court's ruling allows for an application for rehearing within the time frame allowed by Louisiana law. However, details regarding any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing.