Another El Pecos blast lawsuit closer to trial

ANOTHER of the lawsuits relating to the deadly gas explosion at the El Pecos Restaurant in Maraval in 2015 has moved closer to trial.

At a brief hearing on January 5, directions previously given for the filing of applications and responses were firmed up with trial judge, Justice Nadia Kangaloo, setting April 17 for a pre-trial review when trial dates will be fixed, and she will give her decision on evidential objections.

Kangaloo also advised attorneys to reach out to the court after the delivery of the judgment in a separate lawsuit filed by the brother of the restaurant’s accountant, John Soo Ping Chow, who died at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami from burn injuries he sustained in the blast, if it impacts their case.

A dozen people were seriously injured in the explosion, and four months later, Soo Ping Chow died. The judge is expected to hear oral submissions in that case in February, after which a decision will be delivered.

The judge is hearing a series of cases that deal with compensation claims from those who were injured in the explosion, while others concern claims from insurance companies for neighbouring restaurants that were affected by the blast, which are suing to recoup the payouts they would have made to their clients.

In a recent ruling in December, the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court ruling ordering North Plant LPG Co-Operative Society Ltd to pay damages to an employee injured in the 2015 gas explosion.

In a unanimous decision, Justices of Appeal Mark Mohammed and Peter Rajkumar agreed with a judgment delivered by Justice James Aboud, dismissing North Plant’s appeal against an award of $160,000 in general damages to Gregory Maicoo, a lorry man who suffered burns during an LPG delivery to El Pecos Restaurant in Maraval.

The appeal challenged a March 4, 2022, ruling by then-High Court judge Ricky Rahim, who found that North Plant breached its duty of care to Maicoo.

Maicoo was injured when an explosion and subsequent fire erupted in a rear corridor of Royal Palm Plaza on February 5, 2015, as liquefied petroleum gas was being delivered from a North Plant truck to the restaurant’s storage tanks. Evidence before the court showed that gas leaked into the enclosed passageway, ignited and caused burns to Maicoo’s face, scalp and hands.

North Plant argued that it had maintained proper safety systems, training and equipment, and that the cause of the explosion was not proven. The Court of Appeal rejected those submissions, finding no basis to disturb Rahim’s conclusions on negligence.

Aboud referred to the trial judge’s factual findings on the evidence at trial, nothing they justified his conclusion that North Plan breached its duty of care, entitling Maicoo to compensation.

“He undertook a very thorough analysis of the facts presented before him. He very carefully considered the oral testimony of the witnesses, the professional opinions, and the totality of the evidence before arriving at his factual conclusions.

“It cannot rationally be said that the trial judge embarked on a frolic of his own or constructed a causation theory of his own imagining. The trial judge's findings were based on a judicious evaluation of the evidence, and there is no material error that undermines his factual conclusions.

“There is no plausible justification to overturn those findings,” Justice Aboud said.

He also held that Rahim was correct in ruling that Maicoo’s acceptance of workmen’s compensation of $20,140.11 should not be deducted from the award of damages for negligence since the latter was “judicially assessed and not tabulated by a statutory formula.”

“Workmen’s compensation legislation is a statutory scheme that provides fixed, limited compensation to employees injured in the course of employment.

“Payments under this scheme are not based on fault. However, a common law negligence claim is a fault-based claim where the injured worker sues his or her employer for breach of a duty of care.

“Damages awarded here are broader: they cover pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and other heads of damages,” Aboud said.

The Appeal Court also referred to a separate judgment of the Appeal Court involving North Plant and Continental Corporation, the owner of the property that housed the restaurant, and some ten other civil claims arising out of the deadly 2015 blast, refusing to rule on the question of the estoppel principle.

“I do not want to compromise the freedom of the trial judges in those cases when assessing any potential arguments that North Plant or other defendants might face by the various attorneys representing those claimants.”

However, Aboud noted it would have been “sensible and practical” for one of the many claims involving the incident to be used as a “test case or representative action” to determine negligence.

“Unless such an agreement is made, valuable court time will be wasted relitigating issues of fact that have already been determined in the High Court and approved by the Court of Appeal in Continental and in this appeal.

“At some point in the future it may be that an attorney for some of these claimants may be entitled to claim that relitigating the issue of North Plant’s negligence is prevented either by issue estoppel or is abusive.”

At the January 5 hearing, before Kangaloo, Restaurant Holdings Ltd was represented by Raphael Morton-Gittens and Vivek Lakhan-Joseph; Kerwyn Garcia, Faarees Hosein and Melissa Sinanan represented National Petroleum Company Ltd; Kendra Mark-Gordon appeared for El Pecos, and Kelvin Ramkissoon and Nizam Saladeen represented North Plant LPG.