Amerigas Inc. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc.
Annotate this CaseThis matter arose from a propane tank falling on truck driver, Steven King, while an AmeriGas Propane, L.P. employee, David Jones (Jones), was unloading empty propane tanks from King’s flatbed trailer at an AmeriGas facility. Landstar Ranger, Inc., a motor carrier, hired King and his company, King Transportation, LLC, to transport the load of propane tanks. King and his wife, Grace King, brought a personal injury action against shipper, AmeriGas, and carrier, Landstar, for damages for injuries arising from the tank falling on King. AmeriGas settled with the Kings and cross-complained against Landstar for equitable indemnification and contribution. Following a bench trial on AmeriGas’s cross-complaint, the trial court found Landstar not liable for equitable indemnification. The court concluded AmeriGas did not sustain any recoverable loss or damages and Landstar was not liable for violating any Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs).AmeriGas appealed that judgment, arguing the trial court erred in finding Landstar did not owe a legal duty to King and did not suffer a recoverable loss. Furthermore, AmeriGas argued the trial court erred by considering Landstar's affirmative defenses which the trial court had previously stricken from Landstar’s answer to AmeriGas’s cross-complaint, and erred in not issuing a tentative decision before requesting proposed statements of decision and in failing to rule on material issues raised by AmeriGas’s cross-complaint. AmeriGas further argues the trial court’s alternative findings of nonliability are incomplete, ambiguous, and not supported by substantial evidence. The Court of Appeal concluded substantial evidence supported the trial court’s judgment in favor of Landstar, on AmeriGas’s indemnity cross-complaint. There was ample evidence supporting the court’s findings that King was a highly experienced truck driver, qualified to transport AmeriGas’s propane tanks. Therefore Landstar was not negligent based on violations of FMCSRs requiring carriers to ensure their drivers are adequately trained and/or experienced in securing their loads, and adhere to proper securement methods and procedures. Even if Landstar violated FMCSRs, any such violations did not proximately cause or contribute to King’s injuries because the load of propane tanks was secure and stable during transit and upon arrival at AmeriGas’s Fontana yard. The Court also rejected AmeriGas’s objections relating to the trial court’s statement of decision. Any procedural errors were harmless, and the statement of decision was sufficiently thorough and clear in addressing the material disputed issues in this case.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.