{"id":786,"date":"2011-08-08T09:30:25","date_gmt":"2011-08-08T14:30:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mapleslawokc.com\/blog\/?p=786"},"modified":"2025-11-05T14:56:18","modified_gmt":"2025-11-05T14:56:18","slug":"family-of-oklahoma-burn-victim-sues-propane-tank-manufacturers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mapleslawokc.com\/blog\/personal-injury\/family-of-oklahoma-burn-victim-sues-propane-tank-manufacturers\/","title":{"rendered":"Family Of Oklahoma Burn Victim Sues Propane Tank Manufacturers"},"content":{"rendered":"
After an explosion in June at Bill Dog\u2019s Saloon in Caney, Oklahoma, the family of a man who was critically burned in the accident is suing the manufacturers of an allegedly faulty propane tank. <\/p>\n
As reported by NewsOK<\/em>, a 32-year-old man was inside the structure when it exploded, just before 7:30 a.m. on June 5. The man lit a cigarette, according to officials, which triggered the blast.<\/p>\n
The man\u2019s attorney said the victim retained burns on more than 78 percent of his body and was left without a nose or ears. Surgeons were forced to amputate part of his foot as well as a finger. The attorney also said his client has been in a medically induced coma for the past month and is fighting burn infections.<\/p>\n
The owner of the bar said the man resided in the building\u2019s back room for approximately eight months prior to the accident. The bar owner lives in a home behind the saloon and claimed she didn\u2019t smell any gas before the explosion.<\/p>\n
The assistant Oklahoma Fire Marshal said the investigation to determine the cause of the blast is ongoing and that Oklahoma\u2019s Liquid Propane Gas Administration inspected but didn\u2019t conclude propane was the cause.<\/p>\n
The three companies targeted in the lawsuits are: Rossini International Inc., Rego Company and Engineered Controls International, and Henson\u2019s Propane and Equipment Co. The suits (covering several claims, including disfigurement and mental anguish) allege that the defendants did not adequately inspect or test the equipment to warrant against malfunction.<\/p>\n