ÿWPCÉ7 ) ðrך!È2£X3‘¯Ç8àëgñ³,Ž|_tãR=£Üæ`ÝsN­²ó‡$é¢0­„Ð7?‰Ýµ m}>ß›¯I7€7 ±{åÕÚiõ.¹†7Þ¯p¥Í²úù·Û߬(ïßVRhøŽ [è»hè|ûê»lÆŸpM %)Xœ6U:¬5,±§[àÙñŸ0èÑXŒTƒNdïÖ¤÷Ðæ–=œß3æèp¬¨\TOˆ~Fà¹à¨a²™¶4Ó°(>ûR4 ׉âA=#_eÑXõvM`tÀn cùʰ·©ëŸ’0ö`…Äa32B0ìe¼ ÁÀ;Î[žšˆú‘VøLz¶…(¤jDY~IZÃ8×ÝžÊ\ÊŒRûóÁ%‡f®ÓŠ`ëóU> C÷_gA[.ò‹˜Rí,8 Èr–©¶W nRûæÇK‰w2/@B[ ŲB —dN’Ú¨0Ë*fÁr]¸ê:úoÌÊáqi›2+ÜB£™¶¤P/¬a£cúye-<ÅGëà¡`®«¡AõÀÂÀÖ3pï÷¤  '°±ìaFÇmÖèd4kÆ4yÇä#ÚãînæŽ[’á6ê±h2©÷{¨óÌUÒíÞ¨Ë2Érh¥ “¦(# 0ULN; %‰ 0}w@ 4L`oUNwUNÅ 0ò2 0D$ ¿h À' Ïç UN¶¡¥¬qÉUN:üˆo„¶óú©©œ£"Ì?$E )Ü ) Bé)£*U>©+çç+úÎ/YÈ1È1¨!4˜IBM Network Printer 12 PCLIBMPCL,È,,,,,È0 )¼^S Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularŠ(UÛw$¡¡Ñ7€*ˆXd숈dü7ÑÓÓÓ  Ó f$g$Dh$Ui$-Dj$k$l$Dm$n$Eo$VP³$£ 3|xo$(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular( £  Z 6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒ Æq$ÝÓÓÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓ€€In€additionÔ‡&eK&ŠŠÔ,€there€is€case€law€to€support€the€idea€that€lack€of€privity€between€parties€requiresÐ ° Ðactual€knowledge€on€the€part€of€those€accused€of€negligence€before€a€duty€can€exist.€€òòWebbóó,€575€N.E.2d€992,Ð ´ Ð996€(Ind.€1991);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòEssex€v.€Ryanóó€446€N.E.2d€368,€374€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1983).Ô#†Šò¸Š&&eK€#Ô(¢(3ô$¤¤Ý ƒÛw!ÝÑ7€RúˆŠdXXdð7ÑÓÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÓÓÔ€&Õ&ŠŠÔà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó µÝ ƒ Æq$ÝÓÓÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓÔ‡&eK&ŠŠÔÔ#†Šò¸Š&&eKs#Ô ¶Ý ƒ Æq$ÝÓÓÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓÔ‡&eK&ŠŠÔ€€We€note€that€there€is€also€a€duty€to€warn€that€is€encompassed€by€the€Indiana€Products€LiabilityÐ ° ÐStatute.€€Because€we€address€the€products€liability€claim€separately,€in€this€section€we€will€discuss€the€dutyÏto€warn€only€under€ðð€388.Ô#†Šò¸Š&&eKs#Ô ÅÝ ƒ Æq$ÝÓÓÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓ€€Ô‡&eK&ŠŠÔAlthough€Downs€appears€to€argue€that€the€leak€in€the€pipe€caused€Montezumaððs€use€of€the€gas€toÐ ° Ðbe€dangerous,€as€we€concluded€earlier,€there€were€no€facts€alleged€indicating€that€Vesta€had€actualÏknowledge€that€the€pipe€posed€a€threat€to€the€Downs.Ô#†Šò¸Š&&eKu#Ô)¼^S Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular —Ý ƒ Æq$ÝÓÓÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡&eK&ŠŠÔÓÓ€€Downs€cites€òòReynolds€v.€Strauss€Veal,€Inc.óó€for€the€proposition€that€a€supplier€may€be€held€liableÐ ° Ðunder€ðð€388€of€the€Restatement€for€failing€to€warn€a€consumer€of€danger€even€where€the€interveningÏnegligence€of€a€third€party€caused€the€injury.€€Thus,€she€argues€that€€the€Appellees€had€a€duty€to€warn€theÏDowns€of€the€gas„related€dangers€to€which€they€were€exposed€eventhough€it€was€the€negligent€maintenanceÏof€the€pipe€by€Montezuma€that€caused€th€injury.€€However,€we€conclude€that€Downs€has€misapplied€this€case.€Ïà  àThe€òòReynoldsóó€case€involved€the€sale€and€installment€of€a€veal€confinement€operation€which€includedÐ òB Ða€septic€system€for€removal€of€animal€waste.€€The€supplier€apparently€knew€that€the€accumulation€of€methaneÏin€the€septic€tank€could€be€dangerous€to€anyone€entering€the€tank,€but€failed€to€infomr€the€purchaser€of€thisÏdanger.€€As€a€result,€two€men€were€overcome€by€methane€while€in€the€process€of€cleaning€the€tank€and€died.€ÏThe€defendant€was€arguing€that€liability€for€their€negligent€failure€to€warn€the€plaintiffs€about€the€danger€wasÏrelieved€because€of€the€intervening€negligence€of€the€party€installing€the€tank€who€had€failed€to€obtain€theÏnecessary€state€permits.€€We€held€that€the€intervening€negligence€of€the€party€intstalling€the€tank€did€notÏrelive€the€defendantððs€duty€to€warn€the€purchaser€of€the€dangers€associated€with€the€methane€that€would€beÏforeseaably€enountered€when€the€purchaser€cleaned€or€performed€maintenance€on€the€tank.Ô#†Šò¸Š&&eKa#ÔÔ‡&eK&ŠŠò¸Ô€€However,Ð Â  Ðbecuase€we€fid€that€under€the€facts€of€the€present,€Vesta€owed€no€duty€to€warn€the€Downs,€the€Reynolds€caseÏis€not€instructive.Ô#†Šò¸Š&&eK·#Ô ýÝ ƒ Æq$ÝÓÓÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€We€note€that€there€exists€a€duty€to€warn€that€is€encompassed€by€the€ProductsÐ ° ÐLiability€Statute.€€Here,€we€will€discuss€the€duty€to€war Ý ƒ Æq$ÝÓÓÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€We€note€that€there€exists€a€duty€to€warn€that€is€encompassed€by€the€ProductsÐ ° ÐLiability€Statute.€€Here,€we€will€discuss€the€duty€to€warn€only€under€ðð€388. gÝ ƒ Æq$ÝÓÓÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓÔ‡&eK&ŠŠÔ€€We€note€that€there€exists€a€duty€to€warn€that€is€encompassed€by€the€Products€Liability€Statute.€Ð ° ÐHere,€we€will€discuss€the€duty€to€warn€only€under€ðð€388.Ô#†Šò¸Š&&eKs#Ô)¼^S Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular òÝ ƒ ô$ÝÓÓÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€&µ\&ŠŠÔà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€In€addition,€there€is€case€law€to€support€the€idea€that€lack€of€privity€between€parties€requires€actualÐ ° Ðknowledge€on€the€part€of€those€accused€of€negligence€before€a€duty€can€exist.€€òòWebbóó,€575€N.E.2d€992,€996Ð ŠÚ Ð(Ind.€1991);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòEssex€v.€Ryanóó€446€N.E.2d€368,€374€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1983). eÝ ƒ ô$ÝÓÓÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€&µ\&ŠŠÔà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€In€Indiana,€the€duty€of€a€manufacturer€to€give€warnings€about€their€products€is€summarized€by€ððÐ ° Ð388.€€òòAmerican€Optical€Co.€v.€Weidenhameróó,€457€N.E.2d€181,€187€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1983). ¬Ý ƒ ô$ÝÓÓÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€&µ\&ŠŠÔà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Downs€raises€public€policy€as€a€separate€basis€for€imposing€liability€on€the€Appellees.€€However,Ð ° Ðbecause€we€have€addressed€the€public€policy€considerations€she€raises€under€our€analysis€of€duty,€we€do€notÏgive€treatment€to€her€separate€public€policy€argument. ðÝ ƒ ô$ÝÓÓÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€&µ\&ŠŠÔà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Downs€concedes€that€the€Restatement€of€Torts€is€not€the€law€in€Indiana€with€respect€to€negligentÐ ° Ðentrustment.€€However,€she€urges€this€court€to€change€the€law€such€that€only€constructive€knowledge€isÏrequired€in€a€claim€of€negligent€entrustment.€€To€expand€the€liability€of€a€gas€supplier€or€transporter€byÏrequiring€it€to€be€liable€for€that€which€it€should€have€known,€as€noted€earlier€in€this€opinion,€would€have€aÏsignificant€impact€on€the€gas€industry.€€In€light€of€this€consideration,€Downs€has€not€persuaded€us€to€changeÏthe€longstanding€law€of€negligent€entrustment€in€Indiana. ’Ý ƒ ô$ÝÓÓÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€&µ\&ŠŠÔà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Downsðð€claim€under€ðð€388€of€the€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts€dealt€with€the€Appelleesðð€dutyÐ ° Ðto€warn€the€Downs.€€Under€this€product€liability€theory,€Downs€only€asks€us€to€consider€whether€there€wasÏa€duty€to€warn€Montezuma. ÂÝ ƒ ô$ÝÓÓÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€&µ\&ŠŠÔà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€In€addition,€we€note€that€a€duty€to€inspect€arises€out€of€the€nature€of€the€partyððs€interaction€withÐ ° Ðthe€machine€or€instrumentality.€€In€òòJohnson€v.€Kempler€Industries,€Inc.óó,€we€held€that€a€trade„in€dealer€hadÐ ŠÚ Ðno€duty€to€thoroughly€inspect€a€piece€of€machinery€it€sold€to€a€party€because,€as€an€intermediary€party,€theÏdealer€did€not€employ€people€to€inspect€the€safety€mechanisms,€did€not€rebuild€any€of€the€machines€itÏacquired,€and€did€not€routinely€do€thorough€inspections€of€the€machinery€to€determine€if€the€equipment€isÏreasonably€safe€for€use.€€òòJohnson€v.€Kempler€Industries,€Inc.óó,€677€N.E.2d€531,€539€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1997),Ð òB Ðòòtrans.óó€òòdeniedóó.€€Here,€there€is€no€evidence€to€support€that€the€Appellees€inspected€or€maintained€MontezumaððsÐ Ì  Ðdistribution€system€or€that€Montezuma€requested€that€they€do€so.€€Therefore,€under€òòJohnsonóó,€the€AppelleesÐ ¦ ö Ðwould€have€no€duty€to€inspect€due€to€their€complete€lack€of€interaction€with€the€system. ÒÝ ƒ ô$ÝÓÓÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€&µ\&ŠŠÔà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Cathodic€protection€prevents€corrosion€of€steel€pipes€in€soil. d ™Ý ƒ ô$ÝÓÓÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€&µ\&ŠŠÔà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Because€natural€gas€is€odorless€and€therefore€not€detectable€in€circumstances€where€it€could€beÐ ° Ðignited€unintentionally€and€cause€harm,€it€is€required€to€be€odorized€by€use€of€a€suitable€odorant€so€that€itsÏpresence€can€be€detected€by€smell.(èÀ( 9Z &Courier Regular ÝÝ ƒ ô$ÝÓÓÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€&µ\&ŠŠÔà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Downs€also€asserts€that€the€Appellees€are€liable€under€ðð€389€of€the€Restatement€because€theyÐ ° Ðð ð[knew]€or€[had]€reason€to€know€that€Montezuma€was€unlikely€to€make€their€product€safeðð€by€odorizing€theÏgas.€€Appellantððs€brief,€p.€25.€€However,€this€court€has€previously€noted€that€ðð€389€has€not€been€adopted€asÏthe€law€of€this€state.€€òòRogers€v.€Grundenóó,€589€N.E.2d€248,€254€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1992),€òòreh'góó€òòdeniedóó,€òòtrans.óóÐ >Ž Ðdenied.€€In€addition,€we€have€already€concluded€that€there€is€no€genuine€issue€of€fact€from€which€it€could€beÏfound€that€Appellees€either€knew€or€had€reason€to€know€that€the€natural€gas€supplied€or€transported€by€themÏwould€not€be€made€reasonably€safe€for€use€by€Montezuma€under€ðð€388.€€Therefore,€we€do€not€addressÏliability€under€this€theory.€€ ðÝ ƒ ô$ÝÓÓÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€&µ\&ŠŠÔà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€In€òòKoskeóó,€our€supreme€court€held€that€while€it€was€not€appropriate€to€determine€what€dangers€theÐ ° Ðuser€ð ðshould€have€knownðð€under€an€objective€standard,€it€is€still€appropriate€to€consider€what€the€user€of€theÏproduct€actually€knew€in€regards€to€the€dangers€associated€with€a€product.€€òòKoskeóó,€551€N.E.2d€at€441. OÝ ƒ ô$ÝÓÓÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€&µ\&ŠŠÔà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Two€other€cases€have€been€brought€before€this€court€involving€different€defendants€as€a€result€ofÐ ° Ðthe€accident.€€These€cases€are€cited€as€òòTown€of€Montezuma€v.€Downsóó,€685€N.E.2d€108€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1997),Ð ŠÚ Ðòòóóòòtrans.óó€òòdeniedóó€and€òòNatural€Gas€Odorizing,€Inc.€v.€Downsóó,€685€N.E.2d€155€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1997),€òòrehððgóó€òòdeniedóó,Ð d´ Ðòòtrans.óó€òòpendingóó. žÝ ƒ ô$ÝÓÓÓ  ÓÓÓÔ€&µ\&ŠŠÔà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Downs€argues€that€Panhandle€is€a€supplier€under€ðð€388€and€notes€Comment€C€of€this€section€whichÐ ° Ðstates€that€a€supplier€is€ð ðany€person€who€for€any€purpose€or€in€any€manner€gives€possession€of€a€chattel€forÏanotherððs€use.ðð€€However,€to€hold€that€any€transporter€of€goods€being€supplied€through€another€party€is€liableÏto€the€eventual€consumer€would€require€those€in€the€transportation€industry€to€inquire€not€only€about€theÏnature€of€the€product€for€the€purposes€of€transporting€it€safely,€but€also€about€the€intended€use€of€the€productÏand€about€the€knowledge€of€the€consumer€to€whom€they€deliver.€€Imposition€of€such€a€liability€would€imposeÏtoo€great€a€burden€on€the€substantial€industry€built€around€delivering€goods€to€consumers€and€retailers.Ý ƒÛw!ÝÑ7€¢ÚˆŠddÈ7ÑÓÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑаÑÑ€°ÑÓ-°,X°Úp’X°œX-ÓÑ  Ñò òÔ‡RmMRŠŠÔÓÓÑ7€¢ÚŠŠdˆŠd7ÑFOR€PUBLICATIONÔ#†Š¢ÚŠRRmMÈ#ÔÔ‡X™[XŠŠ¢ÚÔÐ € ÐÌó óòòÌATTORNEYS€FOR€APPELLANTóó:à  àòòATTORNEY€FOR€APPELLEEóó:Ð ² 2 ÐÌò òGEORGE€M.€PLEWSó óà  àAttorneys€for€Panhandle€Eastern€€€€€€€Ð ’  Ðò òJEFFREY€D.€CLAFLINó óà  àPipe€Line€Company:Ð ‚  Ðò òDONNA€C.€MARRONó óà  àò òTHOMAS€J.€COSTAKISó óÐ rò ÐPlews€Shadley€Racher€&€Braunà  àò òJEFFREY€C.€McDERMOTTó óÐ bâ ÐIndianapolis,€Indianaà  àò òLINDA€J.€COOLEYó óÐ RÒ  Ðà  àKrieg€DeVault€Alexander€&€CapehartÌà  àIndianapolis,€IndianaÌÌà  àAttorneys€for€Vesta€Energy€Company:Ìà  àò òKEITH€A.€KINNEYó óÐ ‚  Ѐà  àò òALAN€J.€IRVINó óÐ òr Ðà  àHill€Fulwider€McDowell€Funk€&€MatthewsÌà  àIndianapolis,€IndianaÌÌà  àò òMARK€E.€CHRISTENSENó óÐ ²2 Ðà  àChristensen€&€EhretÌà  àChicago,€IllinoisÌñg$ñÌñg$ñà  àÌßA€ ) °°xdE°qxAßÐ rò ÐÌÔ#†Š¢ÚŠXX™[b#ÔÔ‡RmMRŠŠ¢ÚÔà@þþ'ìàò òIN€THEˆÐ qñ Ðà@Ö Ö ìàCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€INDIANAó óˆÐ ÃC ÐÌÔ#†Š¢ÚŠRRmMÛ#ÔÔ‡X™[XŠŠ¢ÚÔÔ‡"XZ±XXX™[ÔßA€ ) °°xdE°f"xAßÔ#†X™[XX"XZ±´#ÔÔ‡"XZ±XXX™[ÔÐ g"ç ÐÌÔ#†X™[XX"XZ±7#ÔKRISTY€S.€DOWNS,€Individually,€as€Personalà  à)Ð f#æ ÐRepresentative€of€the€Estate€of€Ivan€Dean€Downs,à  à)Ð V$Ö Ðand€as€guardian€of€Suzanne€and€Matthew€Downs,à  à)Ð F%Æ  ÐÓ<°,XƒXÚp’X°,X°Úp’X<Óà  àà ` àà  à)Ìà  àAppellant„Plaintiff,à  à)Ð &'¦" Ðà  àà ` àà  à)Ìà  àà ` àvs.à  à)à Ú àNo.€61A05„9701„CV„14Ð )†!$ Ðà  àà ` àà  à)ÌPANHANDLE€EASTERN€PIPELINE€COMPANY€)Ìand€VESTA€ENERGY€COMPANY,à  à)Ð Ö+V$' Ðà  àà ` àà  à)Ìà  àAppellees„Defendants.à  à)Ð ¶-6&) ÐÌÔ‡"XZ±XXX™[ÔßA€ ) °°xdÿÿE°•/xAßÔ#†X™[XX"XZ±“ #ÔÐ –/(+ ÐÐ ¥/%(, Ðà@ì ì ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€PARKE€CIRCUIT€COURTˆÌà@ò ò ìàThe€Honorable€Thomas€K.€Milligan,€Special€JudgeˆÌà@ìàCause€No.ñf$ñ€61C01„9403„CP„81ñf$ñˆÌÌÔ‡"XZ±XXX™[ÔßA€ ) °°xdÿÿE°oxAßÔ#†X™[XX"XZ±ó #ÔÐ pÀ ÐÌÌò òà@³³$ìàñk$ñMay€29,€1ñk$ññk$ñ(Handdownñk$ññl$ñÔ‡"XZ±XXX™[Ôñl$ññk$ñ9ñk$ññk$ñ€ñk$ññl$ñÔ#†X™[XX"XZ±" #Ôñl$ññk$ñ98ñk$ññk$ñDate)ñk$ñˆÐ _ ¯ ÐÌÌà@44ìàOPINION€„€FOR€PUBLICATIONˆÌÌÌSHARPNACK,€Chief€Judgeó óñh$ñÐ ÿO  ÐÌñh$ññi$ñÐ  ÃC  Ðñi$ñѰ€ÑÑ7€¢ÚXŠdŠŠd7ÑÓÓÔ#†Š¢ÚŠXX™[•#ÔÓ- °§X°,XƒXÚp’X-Ó›à  àKristy€Downs,€individually€and€as€personal€representative€of€Ivan€Downs€andÐ ß/  Ðguardian€of€Suzanne€and€Matthew€Downs,€appeals€the€trial€court's€grant€of€summaryÏjudgment€in€favor€of€the€defendant„appellees,€Panhandle€Eastern€Pipeline€CompanyÏ("Panhandle")€and€Vesta€Energy€Company€("Vesta")€(collectively€"Appellees")€determiningÏthat€no€duty€was€owed€by€either€of€them€to€the€Downs.€€Downs€asserts€that€the€designatedÏevidence€establishes€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€that€precludes€summary€judgment.€€TheÏcase€arises€from€a€natural€gas€explosion€at€the€Downsðð€home.€€Ìà  àWe€affirm.Ìà@’’!ìàòòStandard€of€ReviewóóˆÐ "o Ðà  àThe€issue€raised€for€our€review€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€summaryÏjudgment.€€When€we€review€a€trial€court's€grant€of€summary€judgment,€we€apply€the€sameÏstandard€as€the€trial€court.€€òòAyres€v.€Indian€Heights€Volunteer€Fire€Dep't,€Inc.óó,€493€N.E.2dÐ 7(‡#% Ð1229,€1234€(Ind.€1986);€òòseeóó€Indiana€Trial€Rule€56.€€The€appellant€bears€the€burden€of€provingÐ ?*%' Ðthe€trial€court€erred€in€determining€that€there€were€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€thatÐ G,—') Ðthe€moving€party€was€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€òòRosi€v.€Business€FurnitureÐ ° ÐCorp.óó,€615€N.E.2d€431,€434€(Ind.€1993).€€Any€doubt€as€to€the€existence€of€an€issue€ofÐ ¸ Ðmaterial€fact,€or€an€inference€to€be€drawn€from€the€facts,€must€be€resolved€in€favor€of€theÏnonmovant.€€òòCowe€v.€Forum€Group,€Inc.óó,€575€N.E.2d€630,€633€(Ind.€1991).€€"A€genuine€issueÐ È  Ðof€material€fact€exists€where€facts€concerning€an€issue€which€would€dispose€of€the€litigationÏare€in€dispute€or€where€the€undisputed€facts€are€capable€of€supporting€conflicting€inferencesÏon€such€an€issue."€€òòScott€v.€Bodor,€Inc.óó,€571€N.E.2d€313,€318€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1991).Ð à0  Ðà@(ìàòòFactsóóˆÐ è8 Ðà  àThe€facts€most€favorable€to€Downs,€the€nonmovant,€follow.€€Montezuma€MunicipalÏGas€Utility€(ð ðMontezumaðð)€sold€and€delivered€natural€gas€to€customers,€including€theÏDowns,€through€a€distribution€system€installed,€maintained€and€owned€by€the€Town€ofÏMontezuma.€€The€gas,€which€Montezuma€purchased€from€Vesta,€was€produced€from€gasÏfields€in€western€states€including€Kansas.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñThe›€gas€was€transferred€by€Vesta€to€MontezumaÏat€Haven,€Kansas,€and€reached€Montezumaððs€distribution€facility€through€a€pipeline€systemÏoperated€by€Panhandle.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñMontezuma›€contracted€with€Panhandle€for€the€transportation€of€itsÏgas€through€Panhandleððs€pipeline.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñThe›€natural€gas€produced€by€Vesta€and€transportedÏthrough€Panhandleððs€pipeline€was€odorless.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñMontezuma,›€after€receiving€the€gas€fromÏPanhandleððs€pipeline€into€its€own€system,€added€odorant€to€the€gas,€utilizing€apparatus€andÏodorant€it€purchased€from€Natural€Gas€Odorizing,€Inc.€("NGO").€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñ›Ìà  àMontezumaððs€gas€distribution€system€was€installed€in€1934€and€consisted€of€bare€steelÏpipe€buried€in€the€ground.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñThe›€service€line€to€the€Downsðð€home€was€installed€in€1942.€Ð P- (( Мñi$ñò òó óñi$ñBecause›€bare€steel€pipe€is€susceptible€to€corrosion,€federal€regulations€now€prohibitÏinstallation€of€this€type€of€pipe.€€However,€bare€steel€œpipe›€installed€prior€to€1971€do€not€haveÏto€be€replaced.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñIn›€1992,€Montezuma€began€a€project€to€replace€the€bare€steel€pipe€in€itsÏsystem€with€polyethylene€pipe€which€is€less€susceptible€to€corrosion.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñ›Ìà  àIn€the€early€morning€of€January€21,€1993,€natural€gas€from€a€ruptured€service€lineÏseeped€into€the€foundation€of€the€Downsðð€house€in€Montezuma,€Indiana.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñDuring›€this€time,ÏKristy€and€her€two€children,€Suzanne€and€Matthew,€were€asleep.€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñ›€œAround›€one€o'clock€in€theÏmorning,€Downsðð€husband,€Ivan,€returned€home€from€work.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñWhen›€Ivan€added€logs€to€aÏwood€burning€stove,€the€gas€ignited.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñThe›€subsequent€explosion€destroyed€the€house€andÏfatally€injured€Ivan.ò ò€ó ó€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñKristy,›€Suzanne,€and€Matthew€survived,€but€received€serious€injuriesÐ øH Ðfrom€the€œexplosion.ñi$ñò òó óñi$ñ›Ìà  àThe€National€Transportation€Safety€Board€("NTSB")€investigated€the€explosion€andÏdetermined€that€the€gas€leak€came€from€a€corroded€bare€steel€service€line€to€the€DownsððÏhome.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñThe›€steel€line€apparently€had€been€ruptured€by€a€growing€tree€root.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñShortly›€after€theÏexplosion,€a€check€for€the€presence€of€odorant€at€a€nearby€residence€confirmed€that€the€gasÏodorization€system€was€œfunctioning.ñi$ñ›ò òó óñi$ñ›ÌÓ  ÓòòProcedural€HistoryóóÐ 0%€  ÐÓ…!Óà  àDowns€brought€this€action€for€wrongful€death,€personal€injury,€and€property€damageÏresulting€from€the€explosion€against€the€Town€of€Montezuma,€Montezuma€Municipal€GasÏUtility,€Utility€Safety€and€Design,€Inc.€("USDI"€„€the€contractor€hired€by€Montezuma€toÏinspect€and€advise€concerning€the€pipeline€system),€and€Panhandle.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñIn›€the€complaint,€DownsÐ P- (( Ðalleged€that€Montezuma€negligently€operated€"an€antiquated€and€unsafe€pipeline€system."€ÏRecord,€p.€10.€€Downs€also€alleged€that€both€Montezuma€and€USDI€negligently€failed€toÏinspect€the€service€line€to€her€home€and€failed€to€cathodically€protect€the€line.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñIn›€addition,Ð À Ðshe€alleged€that€Panhandle€negligently€supplied€natural€gas€to€Montezuma€and€failed€toÏodorize€the€gas.׃!j×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ñi$ñœñi$ñœñi$ñò òó óñi$ñ›Ð Ð  Ðà  àDowns€subsequently€filed€an€amended€complaint,€adding€Black€Pipeline€Construction,ÏInc.€("Black"€„€hired€by€Montezuma€to€perform€work€on€the€pipeline€system),€NGO,€andÏVesta€as€defendants.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñIn›€the€amended€complaint,€Downs€alleged€that€Black€damaged€theÏservice€line€to€her€house,€that€NGO€failed€to€odorize€the€gas,€and€that€Vesta€negligentlyÏsupplied€the€gas.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñBoth›€Panhandle€and€Vesta€denied€the€allegations€against€them.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñ›Ìà  àPanhandle€and€Vesta€each€moved€for€summary€judgment.€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñ›€œPanhandle›€claimed€that€asÏan€interstate€transporter€of€natural€gas,€it€merely€carried€the€gas€through€its€pipeline€toÏMontezuma's€service€lines.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñAs›€such,€Panhandle€contended€that€its€liability€ended€once€itÏdelivered€the€gas€to€Montezuma€and€that€it€had€no€duty€to€investigate€the€conditions€of€theÏservice€lines€or€to€odorize€the€gas.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñVesta›€admitted€that€it€provided€the€gas€which€wasÏtransported€through€Panhandle's€pipelines.€€However,€Vesta€likewise€claimed€that€its€liabilityÏended€once€the€gas€was€delivered€to€Montezuma€and€that€it€had€no€duty€to€investigate€theÏconditions€of€the€service€lines€or€to€odorize€the€œgas.ñi$ñò òó óñi$ñ›Ð 8'ˆ"" Ðà  àDowns€responded€to€both€motions€for€summary€judgment.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñDowns›€reasserted€thatÏboth€Panhandle€and€Vesta€negligently€supplied€natural€gas€to€Montezuma€and€failed€toÏodorize€the€gas.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñIn›€addition,€Downs€raised€a€new€claim€that€Panhandle€and€Vesta€were€liableÏunder€a€product€liability€theory.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñSpecifically,›€she€argued€that€the€natural€gas€wasÏunreasonably€dangerous.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñ›Ìà  àFollowing€a€hearing€on€the€motions€for€summary€judgment,€the€trial€court€enteredÏsummary€judgment€in€favor€of€Panhandle€and€œVesta.ñi$ñ›ò òó óñi$ñ›ÌòòÓ  ÓIntroductionóóÐ è8 ÐÓ5-Óà  àBefore€we€turn€to€the€merits€of€this€appeal,€we€make€some€preliminary€observationsÏabout€the€nature€of€natural€gas€œas›€a€background€for€our€analysis.€€Natural€gas€is,€as€a€matterÏof€law,€a€dangerous€substance.€€òòSouth€Eastern€Indiana€Natural€Gas€Co.,€Inc.€v.€Ingramóó,€617Ð P ÐN.E.2d€943,€952€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€However,€the€utility€of€natural€gas€is€derived€from€theÏvery€qualities€that€make€it€dangerous.€€It€is€gaseous€and€flammable.€€Because€it€is€gaseous,Ïit€can€be€moved€through€pipes€and€apparatus€as€needed.€€Because€it€is€flammable,€it€can€burnÏand€produce€heat€for€various€purposes.€€Natural€gas€is€odorless,€which€makes€it€unreasonablyÏdangerous€because€its€unintended€presence€cannot€be€detected€and€it€is€explosive€whenÏmixed€with€air.€€Because€natural€gas€is€odorless,€governmental€regulations€and€commonÏsense€due€care€require€that€an€odorant€be€added€to€it€where€it€is€to€be€used€by€ordinaryÏconsumers€so€that€they€will€realize€that€gas€is€present€when€and€where€it€should€not€be.€ÏProperly€odorized€natural€gas€is€not€unreasonably€dangerous€for€use€by€ordinary€consumers.€ÏòòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€òòJones€v.€Hittle€Service,€Inc.óó,€219€Kan.€627,€549€P.2d€1383€œ(Kan.€1976).›Ð P- (( Ðà  àBecause€of€the€hazards€associated€with€handling€natural€gas,€a€gas€utility€mustÏfunction€under€the€comprehensive€system€of€state€and€federal€regulations€that€govern€gasÏdistributors.€€òòSeeóó€Ind.€Code€ðð€8„1„22.5„1€to€12€(Gas€Pipeline€Safety).€€As€part€of€thatÐ À Ðregulation,€a€gas€utility€is€œrequiredñj$ñ€toñj$ñ›€comply€with€all€safety€standards,€œinspection›€andÏmaintenance€protocols,€and€record€keeping€and€reporting€requirements.€€I.C.€ðð€8„1„22.5„6.ÌòòÓ  ÓDiscussionóóÐ Ø(  ÐÓK4Óà  àDowns€contends€that€the€designated€evidence€establishes€a€genuine€issue€of€materialÏfact€that€precludes€summary€judgment.€€She€asserts€that€the€liability€of€the€Appellees€isÏestablished€under€œseveral›€theories.€€Her€application€of€these€theories€generally€depends€onÏher€contentions€that€the€Appellees€knew€or€should€have€know€that:€1)€the€gas€was€not€orÏwould€not€be€properly€odorized€by€Montezuma;€2)€the€type€of€pipe€used€by€Montezuma€forÏdistribution€was€unsafe;€or€3)€there€was€a€problem€with€the€particular€pipe€that€leaked€andÏcaused€the€explosion.€€She€continues€her€argument€by€asserting€that€such€actual€orÏconstructive€knowledge€imposed€upon€the€Appellees€a€duty€to€inspect€MontezumaððsÏdistribution€system€to€determine€its€safety,€to€cease€selling€gas€to€Montezuma€if€its€systemÏwas€found€to€be€unsafe,€and€to€warn€Montezuma€and€the€Downs€about€the€dangers€previouslyÏnoted.€€We€will€address€these€contentions€in€light€of€the€several€theories€upon€which€sheÏrelies.Ìà@‹‹#ìàI.€€NegligenceˆÌà  àDowns€argues€first€that€the€Appellees€did€not€establish€that€they€were€entitled€toÏjudgment€as€a€matter€of€law€on€her€common€law€negligence€claim€because€the€AppelleesÐ P- (( Ðfailed€to€demonstrate€that€they€did€not€owe€her€a€duty€of€care.€€At€the€outset,€we€recognizeÏthat€summary€judgment€is€generally€inappropriate€in€negligence€cases.€€òòTibbs€v.€Huber,€Hunt,Ð ¸ Ð&€Nichols,€Inc.óó,€668€N.E.2d€248,€249€(Ind.€1996).€€Issues€of€negligence,€contributoryÐ À Ðnegligence,€causation,€and€reasonable€care€are€more€appropriately€left€for€determination€byÏa€trier€of€fact.€€òòHouin€v.€Burgeróó,€590€N.E.2d€593,€596€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€Whether€a€dutyÐ Ð  Ðof€care€exists,€however,€is€a€question€of€law€to€be€decided€by€the€court.€€òòTibbsóó,€668€N.E.2dÐ Ø(  Ðat€250.Ìà  àWhen€the€defendant€in€a€negligence€case€moves€for€summary€judgment,€it€has€theÏburden€to€show€the€uncontroverted€nonexistence€of€a€least€one€of€the€elements€of€theÏplaintiff's€case.€€òòJarrell€v.€Monsanto€Co.óó,€528€N.E.2d€1158,€1162€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1988),€òòreh'góóÐ øH Ðòòdeniedóó,€òòtrans.óó€òòdeniedóó;€òòseeóó€òòWinkler€v.€V.G.€Reed€&€Sons,€Inc.óó,€638€N.E.2d€1228,€1235€(Ind.Ð P Ð1994).€€The€elements€of€negligence€are€(1)€a€duty€on€the€part€of€the€defendant€to€conform€hisÏconduct€to€a€standard€of€care€arising€from€his€relationship€with€the€plaintiff,€(2)€a€failure€ofÏthe€defendant€to€conform€his€conduct€to€that€standard,€and€(3)€an€injury€proximately€causedÏby€the€breach€of€that€duty.€€òòMullin€v.€Municipal€City€of€South€Bendóó,€639€N.E.2d€278,€283Ð  !p Ð(Ind.€1994).€€Absent€a€duty€owed€to€a€plaintiff€by€the€defendant,€there€can€be€no€actionableÏnegligence.€€òòLewis€v.€City€of€Indianapolisóó,€554€N.E.2d€13,€16€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1990),€òòtrans.óóÐ 0%€  Ðòòdeniedóó.Ð 8'ˆ"" Ðà  àTo€succeed€in€her€negligence€claim,€Downs€must€demonstrate€that€the€Appellees€owedÏher€a€legal€duty.€€Downs€does€not€contend€that€a€statutory€duty€was€owed,€but€rather€that€aÏcommon€law€duty€existed.€€DownsÔ‡ Š¢ÚŠŠŠ¢ÚÔ€relies€on€our€decision€in€òòCity€of€Indianapolis€v.€Batesóó€toÐ P- (( Ðsupport€her€contention€that€a€gas€supplier€and€transporter€are€liable€for€unsafe€conditions€ofÏgas€distribution€pipes€owned€and€maintained€by€a€local€gas€utility.€€òòCity€of€Indianapolis€v.Ð ¸ ÐBates,óó€Ô#†Š¢ÚŠŠ Š¢ÚA#Ô137€Ind.App.€227,€205€N.E.2d€839€(1965).Ô‡ Š¢ÚŠŠŠ¢ÚÔ€€Appellees€assert€that€Downs€hasÐ À Ðmisconstrued€the€holding€in€that€case.€€We€agree.€Ìà  àIn€òòBatesóó,Ô#†Š¢ÚŠŠ Š¢ÚB#ÔÔ‡ Š¢ÚŠŠŠ¢ÚÔ€the€plaintiffs€brought€suit€against€a€local€gas€company€after€a€gas€explosionÐ Ð  Ðdamaged€the€œplaintiffsðð›€house.€€The€explosion€occurred€after€a€third€party€had€installedÏflexible€brass€tubing€to€supply€gas€to€the€œplaintiffsðð›€gas€range€although€such€tubing€isÔ#†Š¢ÚŠŠ Š¢ÚcC#ÔÔ‡ Š¢ÚŠŠŠ¢ÚÔ€knownÐ à0  Ðto€be€unsafe€when€used€for€natural€gas.€€Employees€of€the€gas€company€had€inspected€theÏœplaintiffsðð›€house€and€pipes€after€the€installation€but€did€not€notify€the€plaintiffs€of€theÏproblem€with€the€brass€tubing.€€This€court€affirmed€the€juryððs€verdict€for€the€plaintiffsÏholding€that€the€gas€company€could€be€held€liable€after€acquiring€knowledge€that€unsafeÏtubing€had€been€installed.€€œòòId.Ô#†Š¢ÚŠŠ Š¢ÚÃD#Ôóó›€at€243,€205€N.E.2d€at€847.€€Ð X Ðà  àDowns€œasserts€that›€our€holding€in€òòBatesóó€œis€that›€ð ða€gas€provider€òòis€liableóó€for€damagesÐ ` Ðcause[d]€by€œthe€òòfailure›€of€equipment€installed€and€under€the€control€of€another€œpartyóó›€whenÐ h Ðthe€provider€knows€or€has€reason€to€know€that€injury€may€result€from€its€continued€provisionÏof€gas.ðð€€Appellantððs€brief€p.€15€(original€emphasis).€€Thus,€she€concludes€that€the€AppelleesÏshould€be€liable€because,€despite€the€fact€that€the€Appellees€had€no€control€overÏMontezumaððs€distribution€lines,€they€knew€or€should€have€known€that€MontezumaððsÏdistribution€lines€were€unsafe.Ìà  àHowever,€Downs€reads€òòBatesóó€too€broadly€and,€in€any€event,€it€is€distinguishable€onÐ H+˜&& Ðthe€facts€before€us.€€In€òòBatesóó,€we€noted€œthat›€ð ðthe€appellant€gas€company€did€enter€theÐ P- (( Ðpremises,€examine€and€test€all€appliances€and€gas€pipes€and€tubing€in€such€home€and€òòtherebyÐ ° Ðupon€assuming€such€dutiesóó€became€responsible€for€its€negligence.ðð€€òòBatesóó,€137€Ind.App.€atÐ ¸ Ð243,€205€N.E.2d€at€847€(emphasis€added).€€We€reasoned€that€the€gas€company€had€a€duty€toÏthe€plaintiffs€because€its€affirmative€act€of€inspection€placed€upon€it€the€duty€to€act€once€itÏbecame€aware€of€unsafe€conditions.€€òòId.óó€€In€the€case€before€us,€the€Appellees€did€not€inspectÐ Ð  Ðthe€distribution€pipes€under€the€Downsðð€home€or€elsewhere€in€Montezumaððs€system,€nor€didÏthey€acquire€any€actual€knowledge€of€dangerous€conditions€that€required€remedial€action.€Ìà  àTo€accept€Downsðð€reading€of€òòBatesóó€would€stretch€the€reach€of€liability€to€the€pointÐ è8 Ðwhere€the€Appellees€and€others€with€an€indirect€relationship€to€gas€œconsumers›€would€beÏrequired€to€directly€inspect€gas€pipes€not€within€their€means€to€inspect.€€In€òòBatesóó,€we€furtherÐ øH Ðnoted€that€ð ð[t]he€negligence€in€such€cases€consists€not€in€failing€to€inspect€the€pipes€of€theÏowner€of€the€building,€but€rather€in€furnishing€the€gas€through€the€pipes€after€obtainingÏknowledge€or€information€that€would€suggest€to€a€person€of€ordinary€care€and€prudence€theÏdanger€of€allowing€the€gas€to€pass€through€such€pipes.ðð€€òòId.óó€€(quoting€òòSouthern€Indiana€GasÐ h ÐCo.€v.€Tyneróó,€49€Ind.App.€475,€488,€97€N.E.€580,€585€(1912)).€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€òòBatesóóÐ  !p Ðdoes€not€impose€liability€upon€the€Appellees.Ìà  àIndiana€courts,€heretofore,€have€not€determined€whether€a€gas€supplier€or€gasÏtransporter€has€a€duty€to€a€customer€of€a€local€gas€company€to€insure€that€the€distributionÏsystem€of€the€local€gas€company€is€safely€maintained€and€operated.€€For€guidance,€we€turnÏto€the€case€law€regarding€the€common€law€duty€of€care.€€In€deciding€whether€to€impose€aÏcommon€law€duty,€we€consider€and€balance€the€following€factors:€€(1)€the€relationshipÐ P- (( Ðbetween€the€parties,€(2)€the€reasonable€foreseeability€of€harm€to€the€person€injured,€and€(3)Ïthe€public€policy€concerns.€€òòWebb€v.€Jarvisóó,€575€N.E.2d€992,€995€(Ind.€1991),€òòreh'góó€òòdeniedóó.€Ð ¸ Ðà  àWe€first€consider€the€nature€of€the€relationship€that€exists€between€the€Appellees€andÏthe€Downs.€€In€determining€whether€a€relationship€exists€that€would€impose€a€duty,€we€mustÏconsider€the€nature€of€the€relationship,€a€partyððs€knowledge,€and€the€circumstancesÏsurrounding€the€relationship.€€òòMurphy€v.€Target€Productsóó,€580€N.E.2d€687,€688€(Ind.€Ct.Ð Ø(  ÐApp.€œ1991),€òòreh'góó€òòdeniedóó,€òòtrans.óó€òòdeniedóó.Ô‡&µ\&ŠŠ¢ÚԛРà0  Ðà  àÔ#†Š¢ÚŠ&&µ\=U#ÔThere€is€nothing€in€the€designated€evidence€to€support,€nor€does€Downs€contend,€thatÐ è8 Ða€contractual€relationship€existed€between€the€Downs€and€the€Appellees.€€The€absence€ofÏprivity€of€contract,€however,€does€not€preclude€the€existence€of€a€duty.€€òòWebbóó,€575€N.E.2dÐ øH Ðat€996.€€Appellees€assert€that€they€owe€no€duty€to€the€Downs€because€they€had€no€ownershipÏor€control€of€Montezumaððs€pipelines.€€They€cite€òòNorthern€Indiana€Public€Service€CompanyÐ X Ðv.€East€Chicago€Sanitary€Districtóó€(ð ðòòNIPSCOóóðð)€in€support€of€this€contention.€€òòNIPSCOóó,€590Ð ` ÐN.E.2d€1067€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€òòNIPSCOóó€addressed€the€liability€of€an€electric€utilityÐ h Ðcompany€for€injuries€caused€by€faulty€electrical€wiring.€€In€òòNIPSCOóó,€we€noted€that:Ð  !p ÐÔ‡ Š¢ÚŠŠŠ¢ÚÔÓÓà8  àð ðIt€has€been€repeatedly€held€that€where€the€furnisher€of€electricity€supplies€theÐ (#x Ðsame€to€the€customer,€first€through€its€own€wires,€and€then€through€the€wiresÏowned€and€maintained€by€such€customer,€and€over€which€the€furnisher€had€noÏsupervision€or€control,€and€an€injury€results€by€reason€of€the€negligent€mannerÏin€which€the€customer's€wires€are€equipped€and€maintained,€the€party€whoÏmerely€sells€the€current€is€not€liable.ððÐ Ð Ð  ÐòòÌÓÓId.óó€at€1073€(quoting€òòCaldwell€v.€Alley€et€œalóó.,›€70€Ind.App.€313,€321,€123€N.E.€432,€œ434Ð D*”%% Ð(1919)Ô#†Š¢ÚŠŠ Š¢ÚY#ÔÔ‡ Š¢ÚŠŠŠ¢ÚÔ).Ô#†Š¢ÚŠŠ Š¢Ú×[#ÔÔ‡ Š¢ÚŠŠŠ¢ÚÔ›€Ô#†Š¢ÚŠŠ Š¢Ú\#Ô€In€other€words,€absent€ownership€and€control€of€the€faulty€wiring,€a€supplier€ofÐ L,œ'' Ðelectricity€has€no€duty€for€injury€caused€by€the€ownerððs€failure€to€safely€maintain€the€wiring.€ÏòòÔ‡ Š¢ÚŠŠŠ¢ÚÔId.óó€€Ô#†Š¢ÚŠŠ Š¢Ú,]#ÔWe€find€the€òòNIPSCOóó€case€analogous€to€the€present€case€and€instructive€on€the€issue€ofÐ ¸ Ðduty.€We€see€no€reason€why€this€rule€should€not€be€applied€where€the€utility€involved€isÏnatural€gas€rather€than€electricity.€€Ìà  àOur€review€of€the€designated€materials€does€not€reveal€any€facts€to€support€the€notionÏthat€either€Vesta€or€Panhandle€œhad›€ownership€or€control€over€the€leaking€pipe€that€releasedÏthe€gas€that€exploded€and€injured€the€Downs.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñAfter›€the€gas€was€transferred€to€the€possessionÏof€Montezuma€at€its€distribution€facility,€the€Appellees€had€no€control€of€either€the€gas€or€theÏpipelines€used€by€Montezuma€to€distribute€the€gas€to€its€customers.ò ò€€ó óTherefore,€because€theÐ ð@ ÐAppellees€had€neither€ownership€nor€control€of€the€defective€pipe€from€which€the€gasÏescaped€or€any€other€part€of€the€Montezuma€system,€we€hold€that€there€is€no€relationshipÏbetween€the€Appellees€and€the€Downs€that€would€impose€a€duty€upon€them€to€insure€thatÏMontezumaððs€distribution€system€was€safe.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ‡ Š¢ÚŠŠŠ¢ÚÔid.óó€Ô#†Š¢ÚŠŠ Š¢Ú­a#ÔÐ ` Ðà  àWe€next€address€the€factor€of€foreseeability.€€In€reviewing€œthis›€œfactor,›€we€focus€onÏwhether€the€person€actually€harmed€was€a€foreseeable€victim€and€whether€the€type€of€harmÏactually€inflicted€was€reasonably€foreseeable.€€òòWebbóó,€575€N.E.2d€at€997.€€Consideration€ofÐ (#x Ðforeseeability€in€the€context€of€duty€involves€the€same€considerations€as€that€required€in€theÏcontext€of€proximate€cause,€except€that€it€is€determined€by€the€court€as€a€matter€of€law,€andÏnot,€as€is€usually€the€case€with€proximate€cause,€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòHooks€SuperX,€Inc.€v.Ð @)$$ Ðâ âMcLaughlinóó,€642€N.E.2d€514,€517€(Ind.€1994).€€ð ð[T]he€more€a€[partyððs]€conduct€involves€theÐ H+˜&& Ðlikelihood€of€injury,€the€greater€the€justification€for€recognizing€a€legal€duty.ðð€€òòStump€v.Ð ° ÐCommercial€Unionóó,€601€N.E.2d€327,€332€(Ind.€1992).Ð ¸ Ðâ âòòà  àóóDownsðð€arguments€center€around€the€assertion€that€the€Appellees,€because€of€certainÐ À Ðcharacteristics€of€Montezuma€and€its€gas€distribution€system,€should€have€known€thatÏMontezumaððs€distribution€system€was€unsafe.€€Her€argument€is€based€on€the€designatedÏevidence€showing€that:ÌÓÓà8  àð ðVesta€and€Panhandle€knew€that€they€were€supplying€to€an€unusual€customer,Ïa€very€small€utility.€€They€knew€or€should€have€known€that€the€level€ofÏsophistication€of€gas€utilities,€their€equipment€and€employees€vary€widely.€ÏThey€knew€or€should€have€known€that€small€utilities€are€more€susceptible€thanÏlarge€utilities€to€pipeline€safety€problems€resulting€from€use€of€bare€steel€asÏopposed€to€more€modern€safer€pipelines.€€They€knew€or€should€have€knownÏthat€the€technical€sophistication€of€employees€at€small€utilities€such€as€theÏMontezuma€Utilities€tends€to€be€low.€€Thus,€Montezumaððs€size€alone€put€VestaÏand€Panhandle€on€notice€that€the€utility€to€which€it€[sic]€was€supplying€wasÏunusually€susceptible€to€safety€problems€resulting€from€outdated€equipmentÏand/or€inadequately€trained€personnel.ððÓÿfÓÐ Ð Ð  ÐAppellantððs€brief,€pp.17„18€(citations€omitted).€€Further,€Downs€points€to€MontezumaððsÏannual€regulatory€reports€which€were€apparently€available€for€the€Appellees€upon€request,Ïand€perhaps€even€received€by€Panhandle.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñThese›€reports€indicate€the€number€of€leaksÏrequiring€repair€and€that€a€large€portion€of€Montezumaððs€pipes€are€bare€steel,€a€material€thatÏthe€gas€industry€universally€accepts€as€a€potentially€unsafe€material.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñ›Ìà  àWe€do€not€find€that€these€alleged€facts€support€an€inference€that€the€Downs€or€otherÏgas€customers€inevitably€were€exposed€to€the€danger€of€explosion.€€At€most,€this€evidenceÏsuggests€that,€due€to€its€small€size€and€aging€equipment,€Montezumaððs€distribution€systemÏmay€have€been€more€susceptible€to€safety€problems.€òò€óóSuch€a€circumstance€leaves€theÐ P- (( Ðforeseeability€of€harm€to€the€Downs€and€other€customers€of€Montezuma€remote€andÏspeculative.òòÐ ¸ Ðóóà  àViewed€from€a€perspective€most€favorable€to€the€Downs,€the€most€that€can€be€said€ofÐ À Ðany€knowledge€Appellees€might€have€had€(assuming€that€they€had€examined€the€annualÏreports€of€Montezuma)€about€the€Montezuma€system€was€that€it€sometimes€experiencedÏleakage€and€that€much€of€its€pipe€was€bare€steel.€€Short€of€an€actual€detailed€inspection€of€theÏMontezuma€system€at€a€level€of€intensity€comparable€to€that€required€of€Montezuma,€theyÏcould€be€expected€to€know€no€more.€€Such€knowledge€is€neither€enough€to€charge€them€withÏgreater€knowledge€œnor›€with€a€duty€to€acquire€more.Ìà  àHowever,€even€if€we€were€to€determine€that€the€Appellees€had€constructiveÏknowledge€of€the€deficiencies€of€the€Montezuma€system,€we€conclude€that,€because€of€theÏtenuous€relationship€between€the€Appellees€and€the€Downs,€such€constructive€knowledgeÏalone€would€not€be€enough€to€impose€a€duty.òò€óóÐ ` Ðà  àThis€is€supported€by€the€òòNIPSCOóó€case,€in€which€we€noted€that€where€ownership€orÐ h Ðcontrol€of€the€utility€lines€is€absent,€actual€knowledge€of€the€circumstances€that€created€anÏimminent€danger€to€the€injured€party€is€required€before€liability€attaches.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòNIPSCOóó,€590Ð (#x ÐN.E.2d€at€1073.€€This€would€require€the€Appellees€to€have€actual€knowledge€of€an€unsafeÏcondition€before€they€would€have€a€duty€to€take€action.€€Once€again,€we€find€no€facts€allegedÏin€the€designated€evidence€that€would€support€an€inference€of€such€actual€knowledge.Ð @)$$ Ðà  àDowns€also€argues€that€the€Appellees€had€a€duty€to€inquire€about€or€investigate€theÏsafety€of€Montezumaððs€distribution€system.€€She€cites€òòCity€of€Alexandria€v.€Allenóó€to€supportÐ ¸ Ðthis€contention.€€òòCity€of€Alexandria€v.€Allen,óó€552€N.E.2d€488€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1990),€òòrehððgóóÐ À Ðòòdeniedóó.€€In€this€case,€we€imposed€liability€on€the€city€when€a€fireman€sustained€injuries€fromÐ È  Ða€defective€fire€engine.€€We€held€that€although€the€city€had€no€actual€knowledge€of€theÏdefective€condition,€it€was€nevertheless€liable€because€it€had€a€duty€to€inspect€the€fire€engine,Ïwhich€it€owned€and€about€which€it€had€received€numerous€complaints.€€òòId.óó€at€496.€€DownsÐ à0  Ðconstrues€this€case€to€establish€that€the€Appellees€had€a€duty€to€inspect€and€thus€should€beÏliable€regardless€of€their€knowledge.€€Ìà  àHowever,€the€òòAllenóó€case€is€distinguishable€on€the€facts€before€us.€€In€òòAllenóó,€the€cityÐ øH Ðowned€and€controlled€the€fire€engine,€thus€it€had€a€duty€to€perform€maintenance€inspections.€ÏòòId.óó€at€496.€€Once€again,€the€Appellees€did€not€own€or€control€the€distribution€system€and,€asÐ X Ðsuch,€they€had€no€duty€to€inspect€the€system.œ×ƒ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€òòSeeóó€òòNIPSCOóó,€590€N.E.2d€at€1073.Ð ` Ðà  àAlthough€we€conclude€that€the€Appellees€have€no€duty€established€through€aÏrelationship€with€the€Downs€or€due€to€any€actual€knowledge€of€the€danger,€we€must€stillÏconsider€whether€there€is€some€public€policy€reason€for€imposing€a€duty€of€care€upon€theÐ (#x Ðsuppliers€and€transporters€of€gas€to€ensure€that€utilities€to€which€they€supply€gas€follow€theÏlegal€requirements€for€the€operation€of€such€a€utility€and€otherwise€exercise€reasonable€careÏto€protect€their€customers€and€others.€€Such€utilities€are€subject€to€state€and€federal€regulationÏwith€respect€to€the€handling€and€distribution€of€natural€gas.€€They€are€also€subject€to€theÏobligation€to€exercise€reasonable€care.€€While€there€is€a€strong€argument€that€liability€shouldÏbe€imposed€on€anyone€that€has€within€their€means€to€inspect,€supervise,€and€oversee€theÏdistribution€of€gas€to€the€public,€there€is€little€to€be€gained€by€imposing€such€a€duty€on€oneÏwho€has€no€control€of€or€access€to€the€distribution€system.€€The€cost€of€imposing€such€a€dutyÏwould€exceed€the€benefit€to€be€gained€by€requiring€the€supplier€and€transporter€to€obtainÏaccess€and€exercise€control€in€addition€to€that€already€in€the€hands€of€the€utility.Ìà  àFurthermore,€the€costs€of€such€a€requirement€are€even€less€justifiable€whenÏconsidering€the€state€and€federal€regulations€already€in€place€to€monitor€the€safe€transport€andÏdistribution€of€gas€to€the€public.€€Placing€liability€on€gas€suppliers€and€transporters€for€theÏnegligent€maintenance€of€local€gas€utilities€would€be€duplicative€in€effort.€€Therefore,€weÏagree€with€the€trial€court€in€its€conclusion€that€ð ð[t]he€social€utility€derived€from€the€supplyÏand€transport€of€natural€gas€to€consumers€should€not€be€hampered€by€the€imposition€ofÏliability€based€on€the€negligent€acts€of€distributors.ðð׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Record,€p.€1061.Ð 0%€  Ðà  àIn€sum,€there€is€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€with€regard€to€the€existence€of€aÏrelationship€between€the€Appellees€and€the€Downs€from€either€contract€or€from€ownershipÐ @)$$ Ðor€control€of€the€distribution€system.€€Nor€is€there€any€evidence€of€actual€knowledge€on€theÏpart€of€the€Appellees€that€the€Downs€were€in€imminent€danger€of€the€explosion€that€causedÏtheir€injury.€€Also,€we€do€not€find€a€strong€public€policy€supporting€the€imposition€of€suchÏa€duty.€€In€balancing€these€factors,€we€conclude€that€the€Appellees€owed€no€common€lawÏduty€to€the€Downs.€€òòSeeóó€òòWebbóó,€575€N.E.2d€at€995.Ð Ð  Ðà  àAlthough€we€conclude€that€the€Appellees€owed€no€common€œlaw€duty,›€a€party€may€beÏheld€to€have€assumed€a€duty€where€none€existed€otherwise.€€Ô‡ Š¢ÚŠŠŠ¢ÚÔOur€courts€have€held:Ð à0  ÐÓÓà8  àð ð[A]€duty€may€be€imposed€upon€one€who€by€affirmative€conduct€.€.€.€assumesÏto€act,€even€gratuitously,€for€another€to€exercise€care€and€skill€in€what€he€hasÏundertaken.€€It€is€apparent€that€the€actor€must€specifically€undertake€to€performÏthe€task€he€is€charged€with€having€performed€negligently,€for€without€theÏactual€assumption€of€the€undertaking€there€can€be€no€correlative€legal€duty€toÏperform€the€undertaking€carefully.ððÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌÓU…ÓòòLather€v.€Bergóó,€519€N.E.2d€755,€766€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1988)€Ô#†Š¢ÚŠŠ Š¢Ú …#ÔÔ‡ Š¢ÚŠŠŠ¢ÚÔ(citations€œomitted)Ô#†Š¢ÚŠŠ Š¢Ú³‡#Ô,€òòreh'góó€òòdeniedóóÔ‡ Š¢ÚŠŠŠ¢ÚÔ.Ô#†Š¢ÚŠŠ Š¢Ú#ˆ#ÔÔ‡ Š¢ÚŠŠŠ¢ÚÔ›€Ð T Ðð ðThe€mere€performance€of€coordinate€or€duplicative€functions€will€not€suffice.ðð€€Ô#†Š¢ÚŠŠ Š¢Úfˆ#ÔòòNIPSCOóó,Ð  \ Ð590€N.E.2d€at€1074.Ìà  àHere,€there€is€no€evidence€that€either€Vesta€or€Panhandle€took€active€steps€to€assumeÏa€duty€to€either€Montezuma€or€to€Downs.€€The€Appellees€never€undertook€to€inspect,€repair,Ïor€perform€any€other€function€with€respect€to€Montezumaððs€distribution€system.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñDowns›Ïsuggests€that€Panhandle€may€have€requested€and€reviewed€Montezumaððs€annual€regulatoryÏreports.€€These€reports€indicate€the€number€of€leaks€reported€in€Montezumaððs€system€and€thatÏapproximately€half€of€Montezumaððs€pipes€were€bare€steel€which€are€more€susceptible€toÏcorrosion.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñRegardless›€of€whether€there€is€a€factual€dispute€over€whether€such€reports€wereÐ L,œ'' Ðactually€requested€and€reviewed€by€Panhandle,€the€review€of€such€reports€would€not€resultÏin€the€active€assumption€of€a€duty€to€insure€that€Montezumaððs€distribution€lines€are€safe.€ÏEven€so,€due€to€the€annual€inspections€performed€by€state€agencies€in€regulating€the€safetyÏof€gas€companies,€even€the€routine€review€of€a€gas€companyððs€annual€reports€would€beÏduplicative€in€nature€and€thus€would€still€not€constitute€an€affirmative€intention€to€assumeÏthe€duty€to€inspect€Montezumaððs€lines.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€Thus,€we€find€no€facts€in€dispute€with€respectÐ Ø(  Ðto€either€Vesta€or€Panhandle€actively€assuming€the€duty€to€insure€the€safety€of€MontezumaððsÏdistribution€system.Ìà  àIn€sum,€we€conclude€that€the€Appellees€had€no€duty€to€the€Downs€either€through€theÏcommon€law€or€by€having€assumed€any€duty€towards€the€Downs.€€Liability€does€not€attachÏwhere€there€is€no€duty€and€without€such€duty€there€is€no€action€in€negligence.€€òòEstate€ofÐ P ÐCummings€by€Heck€v.€PPG€Industries,€Inc.óó,€651€N.E.2d€œ305,€312›€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1995),€òòrehððgóóÐ X Мòòdeniedóó,€òòtrans.óó€òòdeniedóó.›€€Therefore,€we€hold€that€summary€judgment€with€respect€to€DownsððÐ ` Ðcommon€law€negligence€theory€is€appropriate.ÌÓ  ÓII.€€Negligent€EntrustmentÌÓ‘Óà  àThe€next€theory€under€which€Downs€asserts€that€the€Appellees€are€liable€is€negligentÏentrustment.€€She€asserts€that€the€negligent€entrustment€section€of€the€Restatement€œ(Second)Ïof›€Torts€œðð›€390€is€applicable.€€However,€we€note€that€this€section€of€the€Restatement€is€not€theÏlaw€in€Indiana.€€òòSeeóó€òòSports,€Inc.€v.€Gilbertóó,€431€N.E.2d€534,€537€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1982).€€InÐ @)$$ ÐIndiana,€the€elements€of€negligent€entrustment€œare:€›€1)€an€entrustment,€2)€to€an€incapacitatedÏperson€or€one€who€is€incapable€of€using€due€care,€3)€with€the€actual€and€specific€knowledgeÐ P- (( Ðthat€the€person€is€incapacitated€or€incapable€of€using€due€care€at€the€time€of€the€entrustment,Ï4)€proximate€cause,€and€œ5)›€damage.€€òòJohnson€v.€Pattersonóó,€570€N.E.2d€93,€97€(Ind.€Ct.€App.Ð ¸ Ð1991).׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð À Ðà  àUnlike€the€Restatement,€which€allows€such€a€claim€to€be€based€on€constructiveÏknowledge,€a€claim€of€negligent€entrustment€in€Indiana€requires€actual€knowledge€that€theÏperson€entrusted€is€incompetent.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€Our€review€of€the€designated€evidence€reveals€noÐ Ø(  Ðevidence€to€support€that€either€of€the€Appellees€had€actual€knowledge€that€Montezuma€wasÏnot€capable€of€safely€handling€and€distributing€the€gas.€€Ìà  àHowever,€Downs€asserts€that€the€evidence€does€support€actual€knowledge.€€SheÏspecifically€contends€that€the€Appellees€had€the€ability€to,€and€that,€in€fact,€Panhandle€didÏrequest€Montezumaððs€annual€reports€containing€a€description€of€the€type€of€pipes€used€byÏMontezuma€and€the€number€of€leaks€in€the€system,€that€Vesta€had€continual€contact€withÏMontezuma€for€several€years€prior€to€the€explosion,€and€that€Montezuma€was€a€small,Ïunsophisticated€utility.€€Even€if€taken€as€true,€none€of€these€asserted€facts€support€anÏinference€that€either€of€the€Appellees€had€actual€knowledge€that€Montezuma€was€incapableÏof€safely€handling€the€gas€that€was€supplied.€€Further,€as€noted€by€Panhandle,€MontezumaÏwas€ð ða€gas€utility€cloaked€with€competence€under€state€and€federal€law€to€distribute€naturalÏgas€to€its€customers.ðð€€Panhandle€brief,€p.€33.€€Therefore,€because€we€find€no€evidence€toÐ 8'ˆ"" Ðsupport€that€the€Appellees€had€actual€knowledge€that€Montezuma€was€incompetent€to€safelyÏdistribute€gas,€we€conclude€that€the€Appellees€are€not€liable€to€the€Downs€under€a€negligentÏentrustment€theory.ÌÓ  ÓIII.€€Duty€to€Warn€When€Supplying€Dangerous€ChattelsÌÓ5›Óà  àDowns€next€asserts€that€the€Appellees€would€be€liable€for€negligence€under€theÏRestatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€œ388,›€which€imposes€liability€on€a€supplier€of€goods€knownÏto€be€dangerous€for€an€intended€use€when€it€does€not€use€reasonable€care€to€inform€theÏconsumer€of€the€facts€that€make€the€chattel€dangerous.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€initially€note€that€this€theoryÐ è8 Ðwould€not€apply€to€Panhandle€because€Panhandle€is€not€the€ð ðsupplierðð€of€the€gas,€but€theÏtransporter.׃'D×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Thus,€we€address€only€Vestaððs€potential€liability€under€this€theory.Ð øH Ðà  àSection€388€of€the€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts€provides:ÌÔ‡ Š¢ÚŠŠŠ¢ÚÔÓÓà8  à"One€who€supplies€directly€or€through€a€third€person€a€chattel€for€another€toÐ X Ðuse€is€subject€to€liability€to€those€whom€the€supplier€should€expect€to€use€theÏchattel€with€the€consent€of€the€other€or€to€be€endangered€by€its€probable€use,Ïfor€physical€harm€caused€by€the€use€of€the€chattel€in€the€manner€for€which€andÏby€a€person€for€whose€use€it€is€supplied,€if€the€supplierÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(a)€knows€or€has€reason€to€know€that€the€chattel€is€or€is€likely€toÏbe€dangerous€for€the€use€for€which€it€is€supplied,€andÐ ` x` x ÐÐ (#x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(b)€has€no€reason€to€believe€that€those€for€whose€use€the€chattelÏis€supplied€will€realize€its€dangerous€condition,€andÐ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(c)€fails€to€exercise€reasonable€care€to€inform€them€of€itsÏdangerous€condition€or€of€the€facts€which€make€it€likely€to€beÏdangerous."Ô#†Š¢ÚŠŠ Š¢Ú¼ž#ÔÐÄ ` x` x ÐÌÓÛžÓòòRestatement€(Second)€of€Tortsóó€ðð€388.Ð Ì  Ðà  àHowever,€we€conclude€that€this€section€of€the€Restatement€does€not€impose€liabilityÏon€Vesta€for€several€reasons.€€First,€turning€to€ðð€388(a),€the€designated€evidence€does€notÏpresent€an€issue€of€fact€as€to€whether€Vesta€knew€or€had€reason€to€know€that€the€gas€itÏsupplied€to€Montezuma€was€or€was€likely€to€be€ð ðdangerous€for€the€use€for€which€it€[was]Ïsupplied.ðð€€òòId.óó€€There€is€no€question€that€natural€gas€is€dangerous.€€To€make€it€reasonably€safeÐ ôD Ðfor€use,€it€must€be€handled€properly.€€Safe€handling€includes€properly€odorizing€the€gas€andÏcontaining€it€in€a€closed€system€that€prevents€leaks.Ìà  àThe€designated€evidence€does€not€indicate€that€Vesta€had€any€reason€to€believe€thatÏMontezuma€would€not€odorize€the€gas€prior€to€distributing€it.€€Further,€we€have€alreadyÏdetermined€that€there€was€also€no€issue€of€fact€as€to€whether€Vesta€had€either€actual€orÏconstructive€knowledge€of€the€leaking€pipe€that€caused€the€gas€explosion.€€òòSeeóó€òòJones,óó€219Ð $"t ÐKan.€at€634,€549€P.2d€at€1391€(concluding€that€retail€and€wholesale€suppliers€of€propane€hadÏno€liability€for€an€explosion€under€ðð€388€because€ð ð[n]one€of€the€defendants€here€knew€or€hadÏreason€to€know€that€the€propane€gas€would€be€piped€through€a€leaky€line€and€from€there€filterÏthrough€the€earth€to€a€place€where€it€might€collectðð).€€Therefore,€the€designated€evidenceÏdoes€not€indicate€that€Vesta€had€any€reason€to€believe€that€€Montezuma€would€not€handle€theÐ L,œ'' Ðgas€in€a€safe€manner.€€Thus,€under€ðð€388(a),€the€Appellees€did€not€ð ð[Ô‡ Š¢ÚŠŠŠ¢ÚÔknow]€or€[have€reasonÐ ° Ðto€know]€that€the€chattel€is€or€is€likely€to€be€dangerous€for€the€use€for€which€it€is€suppliedÔ#†Š¢ÚŠŠ Š¢Ú•©#Ô.ðð€Ð ¸ ÐòòRestatement€(Second)€of€Tortsóó€ðð€388.Ð À Ðà  àFurthermore,€under€ðð€388(b),€we€conclude€that€Vesta€hadÔ‡ Š¢ÚŠŠŠ¢ÚÔ€ð ðreason€to€believe€that€thoseÐ È  Ðfor€whose€use€the€chattel€is€supplied€will€realize€its€dangerous€conditionÔ#†Š¢ÚŠŠ Š¢Ú«#Ô.ðð€€òòId.óó€€TheÐ Ð  Ðdesignated€evidence€indicates€that€Montezuma€was€well€aware€of€the€dangers€of€natural€gas.€ÏIn€òòJonesóó,€the€Supreme€Court€of€Kansas,€applying€ðð€388€to€similar€facts,€held€that:Ð à0  ÐÓÓà8  àð ð[T]he€manufacturer€of€LP€gas€who€sells€it€to€a€distributor€in€bulk€fulfills€hisÏduty€to€the€ultimate€consumer€when€he€ascertains€that€the€distributor€to€whomÏhe€sells€is€adequately€trained,€is€familiar€with€the€properties€of€the€gas€and€safeÏmethods€of€handling€it,€and€is€capable€of€passing€on€that€knowledge€to€hisÏcustomers.€€A€manufacturer€so€selling€owes€no€duty€to€warn€the€ultimateÏconsumer,€and€his€failure€to€do€so€is€not€negligence€and€does€not€render€theÏproduct€defective.ððÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌÓº¬ÓœòòJonesóó,€219€Kan.€at›€639,€549€P.2d€at€1394.€€In€other€words,€if€a€distributor€of€gas€has€adequateÐ X Ðknowledge€of€the€dangers€associated€with€the€gas€it€purchases€from€a€bulk€supplier€of€gas,Ïthe€bulk€supplier€has€no€duty€to€warn€the€ultimate€consumer€of€the€gas.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€635„636,Ð h Ð549€P.2d€at€1392€(distinguishing€bulk€supplier€situations€from€situations€where€a€supplier€isÏable€to€warn€the€ultimate€consumer€through€the€use€of€a€warning€label€on€the€packaging).€€Ìà  àIn€addition,€a€supplierððs€duty€to€warn€a€retailer€or€distributor€of€gas€is€satisfied€whereÏthere€is€evidence€that€the€distributor€knew€of€the€dangerous€characteristics€of€the€gas€and€theÏsafe€methods€of€handling€it€and€had€operated€a€business€distributing€it€for€many€years.€ÏòòParkinson€v.€California€Co.óó,€255€F.2d€265,€268€(10th€Cir.€1958).€€ð ðWarning€is€required€toÐ H+˜&& Ðimpart€knowledge,€and€if€that€knowledge€has€already€been€acquired,€it€is€not€necessary.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ P- (( Ðat€269;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòShanks€v.€A.F.E.€Industries,€Inc.óó,€416€N.E.2d€833,€837€(Ind.€1981)€(holdingÐ ° Ðthat€no€additional€warning€must€be€furnished€where€such€warnings€would€not€improve€uponÏthe€userððs€understanding€of€the€characteristics€of€the€product).€€Ìà  àTherefore,€under€ðð€388,€we€must€determine€if€Montezuma€was€adequately€warned€ofÏthe€dangers,€such€that€Vesta€had€no€duty€to€warn€the€Downs€or€any€other€customers€ofÏMontezuma.€€The€designated€evidence€clearly€indicates€that€Montezuma€was€well€aware€ofÏthe€dangers€associated€with€transporting€natural€œgas›€œand,›€in€particular,€of€the€potentialÏproblems€with€its€own€distribution€system.€€This€knowledge€is€indicated€by€the€programs€andÏpolicies€developed€by€Montezuma€to€survey,€inspect,€repair€its€pipelines€and€to€detect€leaksÏand€corrosion.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñThe›€evidence€indicates€that€Montezuma€knew€the€purposes€œof›€odorization€andÏhad€an€odorization€system€in€place€to€add€odorant€into€its€gas€to€aid€customers€in€detectingÏleaks.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñRicky›€Nichols,€an€employee€of€Montezuma,€indicated€in€his€deposition€thatÏMontezuma€was€fully€aware€of€the€potential€safety€problems€that€could€arise€with€bare€steelÏpipe€and€that€USDI,€hired€by€Montezuma€to€perform€inspections€and€leak€surveys,€hadÏrecommended€to€Montezuma€that€the€pipes€be€replaced.€€In€fact,€Montezuma€had€begun€aÏprogram€to€replace€the€bare€steel€pipes€with€pipes€less€susceptible€to€corrosion.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñFurther,›ÏMontezuma€even€undertook€to€warn€its€own€customers€of€the€dangers€of€gas.€€œñi$ñò òó óñi$ñ›€Ìà  àAs€noted€earlier,€natural€gas€is,€as€a€matter€of€law,€a€dangerous€substance€and€isÏregulated€by€state€and€federal€authorities.€€òòSouth€Eastern€óó,€617€N.E.2d€at€952.€€The€designatedÐ @)$$ Ðevidence€reveals€that€Montezuma€did€prepare€and€file€regulatory€reports€and€was€inspectedÏat€least€annually€by€the€state€œagencies.ò òñi$ñ›ñi$ñó ó›Ð P- (( Ðà  àTherefore,€we€agree€with€Vesta€that€while€the€evidence€designated€by€the€DownsÏshows€that€Montezuma€may€have€been€negligent€in€maintaining€its€distribution€system,€itÏdoes€not€indicate€that€Montezuma€was€not€fully€aware€of€the€dangers€associated€withÏdistributing€gas€generally€or€through€its€own€pipelines,€specifically.€€Therefore,€under€ðð€388,ÏVesta€had€no€duty€to€warn€Montezuma€of€these€well€known€dangers.€€òòSeeóó€òòParkinsonóó,€255Ð Ð  ÐF.2d€at€269.€€Because€the€evidence€indicates€that€Montezuma€was€adequately€warned€of€theseÏdangers,€Vesta,€as€a€bulk€supplier,€also€had€no€duty€to€warn€the€Downs.€€òòSeeóó€òòJonesóó,€219€Kan.Ð à0  Ðat€639,€549€P.2d€at€1394.Ìà  àTherefore,€we€conclude€that€the€designated€evidence€does€not€present€a€genuine€issueÏof€material€fact€as€to€whether€Vesta€had€a€reason€to€believe€that€Montezuma€would€notÏhandle€the€gas€in€a€safe€manner€or€that€Montezuma€would€not€realize€that€gas€is€dangerousÏwhen€not€safely€handled.€€òòSeeóó€òòRestatement€(Second)€of€Tortsóó€œðð€388›€œ(a),€(b).›€€As€such,€weÐ X Ðconclude€that€liability€is€not€established€under€ðð€388.œ×ƒ#×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  כР` Ðà  àNevertheless,€Downs€cites€òòReynolds€v.€Strauss€Veal,€Inc.óó€for€the€proposition€that€aÐ h Ðsupplier€may€be€held€liable€under€ðð€388€for€failing€to€warn€a€consumer€of€danger€even€whereÏthe€intervening€negligence€of€a€third€party€caused€the€injury.€€òòReynolds€v.€Strauss€Veal,€Inc.óó€Ð (#x Ð519€N.E.2d€226€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€œ1988),€òòtrans.óó€òòdeniedóó.›€€Thus,€she€argues€that€the€Appellees€hadÐ 0%€  Ða€duty€to€warn€the€Downs€of€the€gas„related€dangers€to€which€they€were€exposed€even€thoughÏit€was€the€negligent€maintenance€of€the€pipe€by€Montezuma€that€caused€the€injury.€€However,Ïwe€conclude€that€Downs€has€misapplied€that€case.€€Ìà  àThe€òòReynoldsóó€case€involved€the€sale€and€installment€of€a€veal€confinement€operationÐ È  Ðwhich€included€a€septic€system€for€removal€of€animal€waste.€€The€supplier€apparently€knewÏthat€the€accumulation€of€methane€in€the€septic€tank€could€be€dangerous€to€anyone€enteringÏthe€tank,€but€failed€to€inform€the€purchaser€of€this€danger.€€As€a€result,€two€men€wereÏovercome€by€methane€and€died€while€in€the€process€of€cleaning€the€tank.€€The€defendantÏargued€that€liability€for€their€negligent€failure€to€warn€the€plaintiffs€about€the€danger€wasÏrelieved€because€of€the€intervening€negligence€of€the€party€installing€the€tank€who€had€failedÏto€obtain€the€necessary€state€permits.€€Ìà  àWe€held€that€the€intervening€negligence€of€the€party€installing€the€tank€did€not€relieveÏthe€defendantððs€duty€to€warn€the€purchaser€of€the€dangers€associated€with€the€methane€thatÏwould€be€foreseeably€encountered€when€the€purchaser€cleaned€or€performed€maintenance€onÏthe€tank.€€òòId.óó€at€229.€€However,€the€Appellees€are€not€arguing€that€Montezumaððs€negligenceÐ  !p Ðin€maintaining€the€pipes€relieves€them€of€their€duty€to€warn€as€in€òòReynoldsóó.€€They€argue€that,Ð (#x Ðunder€ðð€388,€they€have€no€duty€to€warn.€€Because€we€have€concluded€that€under€the€facts€ofÏthe€present€case,€Vesta€owed€no€duty€to€warn€the€Downs,€the€òòReynoldsóó€case€is€notÐ 8'ˆ"" Ðinstructive.€Ìâ âÓ±ÓIV.€€Product€LiabilityÐ H+˜&& ÐÓNÈÓÓ  Óà  àNext,€Downs€argues€that€the€Appellees€did€not€establish€that€they€were€entitled€toÏâ âjudgment€as€a€matter€of€law€on€her€product€liability€claim.€€She€asserts€that€the€AppelleesÏ"are€strictly€liable€to€the€Downs€for€their€failure€to€provide€any€kind€of€warning€toÏMontezuma€concerning€the€inherent€dangers€associated€with€their€product€or€instructionsÏconcerning€its€use."€€Appellant's€brief,€pp.€33„34.Ìà  àAt€the€outset,€we€must€address€the€Appellees'€contention€that€Downs€has€waived€thisÏissue€by€failing€to€raise€it€in€her€pleadings.€€To€preclude€summary€judgment,€the€nonmovantÏmay€not€contend€that€there€were€factual€issues€concerning€a€theory€of€recovery€which€heÏcould€have€raised€in€his€pleadings,€but€did€not.€€òòKeane€v.€Pachteróó,€598€N.E.2d€1067,€1071Ð ð@ Ð(Ind.€Ct.€App.€œ1992),€òòreh'góó€òòdeniedóó,€òòtrans.óó€òòdeniedóó;›€òòFunk€v.€Funkóó,€563€N.E.2d€127,€131€(Ind.Ð øH ÐCt.€App.€œ1990),€òòtrans.óó€òòdeniedóó.›€€However,€because€the€Appellees€were€given€adequate€timeÐ P Ðto€respond€to€this€theory€of€liability€in€their€replies€to€Downsðð€brief€œasserting›€this€theory€andÏbecause€this€issue€was€presented€to€the€trial€court€during€the€summary€judgment€hearing,€weÏwill€address€the€merits€of€Downsðð€challenge.Ìà  àIn€Indiana,€actions€for€strict€liability€in€tort€are€governed€by€the€Product€Liability€Act,ÏœI.›€œC.›€ðððð€33„1„1.5„1,€òòetóó€òòseqóó.€€òòYork€v.€Union€Carbide€Corp.óó,€586€N.E.2d€861,€867€(Ind.€Ct.€App.Ð (#x Ð1992);€òòseeóó€òòSenco€Prod.,€Inc.€v.€Rileyóó,€434€N.E.2d€561,€567€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1982),€òòreh'góóÐ 0%€  Ðòòdeniedóó.€€The€section€imposing€strict€liability€provides€in€part:Ð 8'ˆ"" ÐÓÓà8  à"(a)€.€.€.€a€person€who€sells,€leases,€or€otherwise€puts€into€the€stream€ofÏcommerce€any€product€in€a€defective€condition€unreasonably€dangerous€to€anyÏuser€or€consumer€or€the€user's€or€consumer's€property€is€subject€to€liability€forÏphysical€harm€caused€by€that€product€to€the€user€or€consumer€or€to€the€user'sÏor€consumer's€property€if€that€user€or€consumer€is€in€the€class€of€persons€thatÐ P- (( Ðthe€seller€should€reasonably€foresee€as€being€subject€to€the€harm€caused€by€theÏdefective€condition,€and€if:Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€The€seller€is€engaged€in€the€business€of€selling€such€aÏproduct;€andÐ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)€The€product€is€expected€to€and€does€reach€the€user€orÏconsumer€without€substantial€alteration€in€the€condition€inÏwhich€it€is€sold€by€the€person€sought€to€be€held€liable€under€thisÏchapter.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  à(b)€The€rule€stated€in€subsection€(a)€applies€although:Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€The€seller€has€exercised€all€reasonable€care€in€theÏmanufacture€and€preparation€of€the€product;€andÐ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)€The€user€or€consumer€has€not€bought€the€product€from€orÏentered€into€any€contractual€relation€with€the€seller.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  àHowever,€in€any€action€based€on€an€alleged€design€defect€in€the€product€orÏbased€on€an€alleged€failure€to€provide€adequate€warnings€or€instructionsÏregarding€the€use€of€the€product,€the€party€making€the€claim€must€establish€thatÏthe€manufacturer€or€seller€failed€to€exercise€reasonable€care€under€theÏcircumstances€in€designing€the€product€or€in€providing€the€warnings€orÏinstructions."Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓžÏÓI.C.€ðð€33„1„1.5„3(a),(b).€€Ô‡ Š¢ÚŠŠŠ¢ÚÔA€product€is€in€a€defective€condition€under€this€chapter€ifÔ#†Š¢ÚŠŠ Š¢ÚÓÖ#Ô:Ð h ÐÓÓà8  àð ðat€the€time€it€is€conveyed€by€the€seller€to€another€party,€it€is€in€a€condition:Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€not€contemplated€by€reasonable€persons€among€thoseÏconsidered€expected€users€or€consumers€of€the€product;€€andÐ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)€that€will€be€unreasonably€dangerous€to€the€expected€user€orÏconsumer€when€used€in€reasonably€expectable€ways€of€handlingÏor€consumption.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  à(b)€A€product€is€defective€under€this€chapter€if€the€seller€fails€to:Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€properly€package€or€label€the€product€to€give€reasonableÏwarnings€of€danger€about€the€product;€€orÐP- ((` x` x Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)€give€reasonably€complete€instructions€on€proper€use€of€theÏproduct;€when€the€seller,€by€exercising€reasonable€diligence,Ïcould€have€made€such€warnings€or€instructions€available€to€theÏuser€or€consumer.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà8  à(c)€A€product€is€not€defective€under€this€chapter€if€it€is€safe€for€reasonablyÏexpectable€handling€and€consumption.€€If€an€injury€results€from€handling,Ïpreparation€for€use,€or€consumption€that€is€not€reasonably€expectable,€theÏseller€is€not€liable€under€this€chapter.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(d)€A€product€is€not€defective€under€this€chapter€if€the€product€is€incapable€ofÏbeing€made€safe€for€its€reasonably€expectable€use,€when€manufactured,€sold,Ïhandled,€and€packaged€properly€œ.ðð›Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓf×ÓI.C.€ðð€33„1„1.5„2.5.Ìà  àPursuant€to€this€statute,€a€defendant€is€liable€when€it€"puts€into€the€stream€ofÏcommerce€any€product€without€reasonable€(adequate)€warnings€thereby€leaving€it€in€aÏcondition€unreasonably€dangerous€to€any€user,€if€such€warnings€could€have€been€given€in€theÏexercise€of€reasonable€diligence."€€òòJarrellóó,€528€N.E.2d€at€1166.€€The€failure€to€adequatelyÐ X Ðwarn€cannot€alter€the€basic€nature€of€the€product,€but€may€render€the€product€unreasonablyÏdangerous.€€òòId.óó€€While€warnings€cannot€make€a€dangerous€product€safe,€such€warnings€mayÐ h Ðavert€liability.€€òòId.óó€€Ð  !p Ðà  àIn€her€brief,€Downs€makes€clear€that€she€is€not€arguing€that€the€Appellees€are€strictlyÏliable€for€failing€to€provide€warnings€to€the€Downs,€but€ð ðonly€that€it€was€Vestaððs€andÏPanhandleððs€failure€to€provide€warnings€to€Montezuma€which€triggered€their€liability€underÏthe€[product€liability]€statute.ðð€€Appellantððs€brief,€p.€36,€n.17.œ×ƒ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€Ð @)$$ Ðà  àUnder€the€Product€Liability€Act,€a€product€may€be€deemed€ð ðdefectiveðð€if€notÏaccompanied€by€the€appropriate€warnings€as€to€its€dangerous€characteristics€and€properties.€ÏI.C.€ðð€33„1„1.5„2.5(b)(1).€€A€party€making€a€claim€of€liability€must€show€that€the€defendantÏð ðfailed€to€exercise€reasonable€care€òòunder€the€circumstancesóó€in€designing€the€product€or€inÐ È  Ðproviding€the€warnings€or€instructions."€€I.C.€ðð€33„1„1.5„3€(emphasis€added).€€ActualÏknowledge€and€appreciation€of€specific€dangers€associated€with€a€product€will€bar€recoveryÏfor€injury€caused€in€the€use€of€that€product.€€òòKoske€v.€Townsend€Engineering€Co.óó,€551Ð à0  ÐN.E.2d€437,€441€(Ind.€1990).׃$×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Further,€no€additional€warning€must€be€furnished€where€suchÐ è8 Ðwarnings€would€not€add€to€the€userððs€understanding€of€the€characteristics€of€the€product.€ÏòòShanksóó,€416€N.E.2d€at€837.Ð øH Ðà  àSpecifically,€€Downs€contends€that€the€Appellees€had€a€duty€to€ð ðwarn€MontezumaÏabout€such€things€as€using€bare€steel€lines€to€distribute€the€product€or€using€the€properÏamount€of€odorant€to€ensure€that€their€unodorized€product€would€be€made€safer.ðð€ÏAppellantððs€brief,€p.€34.€€We€disagree.Ìà  àFirst,€we€note€that€a€condition€for€liability€for€putting€into€the€stream€of€commerce€aÏð ðproduct€unreasonably€dangerous€to€any€userðð€is€that€ð ðthe€product€is€expected€to€and€doesÏreach€the€user€or€consumer€without€substantial€alteration€in€the€condition€in€which€it€is€soldÏâ âby€the€person€sought€to€be€held€liable.ðð€€I.C.€ðð€33„1„1.5„3(a).€€As€we€noted€earlier,€there€isÐ 8'ˆ"" Ðno€question€that€the€unodorized€gas€supplied€by€Vesta€and€transported€by€Panhandle€wasÏexpected€to€be€substantially€altered€by€the€addition€of€odorant€by€Montezuma.€Ìâ âà  àSecond,€section€(a)€notwithstanding,€the€designated€evidence€indicates€thatÏMontezuma€had€actual€knowledge€of€the€dangers€associated€with€the€distribution€andÏhandling€of€natural€gas.€€Section€(b)€of€the€statute€states€that€where€the€action€is€based€on€aÏfailure€to€warn,€as€it€is€here,€it€must€be€found€that€ð ðthe€manufacturer€or€seller€failed€toÏexercise€reasonable€care€òòunder€the€circumstancesóó€.€.€.€in€providing€the€warnings€orÐ à0  Ðinstructions.ðð€€I.C.€ðð€33„1„1.5„3(b)€(emphasis€added).€€As€we€noted€under€our€ðð€388€analysis,Ïthere€was€no€information€about€natural€gas€or€the€handling€of€gas€that€could€have€beenÏprovided€by€the€Appellees€that€would€have€improved€upon€the€knowledge€MontezumaÏalready€possessed.€€òòSeeóó€òòShanksóó,€€416€N.E.2d€at€837.€€As€we€held€under€ðð€388,€we€now€alsoÐ P Ðhold€under€I.C.€ðð€33„1„1.5„3€that€the€supplier€has€no€duty€to€warn€a€gas€distributor€if€theÏdistributor€already€has€adequate€knowledge€of€the€dangers€associated€with€the€gas€itÏpurchases.€€òòSeeóó€òòJonesóó,€219€Kan.€at€635„636,€549€P.2d€at€1392.€€Thus,€we€do€not€find€that€theÐ h ÐAppellees€ð ðfailed€to€exercise€reasonable€care€under€the€circumstances.ðð€€I.C.€ðð€33„1„1.5„3(b).€ÏTherefore,€we€conclude€that€the€Appellees€are€not€liable€under€the€Product€Liability€Act.€ÌòòÓ™ÈÓÓ  ÓConclusionóóÐ 0%€  ÐÓïÓà  àBecause€we€conclude€that€there€is€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€with€respect€toÏeach€of€the€theories€of€negligence€raised€by€Downs,€we€hold€that€summary€judgment€inÏfavor€of€the€Appellees€is€appropriate.€€òòSeeóó€œòòRosióó,›€615€N.E.2d€œat›€œ434.›Ð H+˜&& ÐÓíÓà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€in€all€respects.Ð P- (( ÐAffirmed.׃%×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ° ÐÓpðÓœñm$ñRucker,€J.ñm$ññn$ññm$ñ€ñm$ññn$ñño$ñ,€and€Friedlander,€J.€concurño$ñ›