By Charles B. Meyer
The 2020 Watson Grinding and Manufacturing gas explosion in Houston left three people dead, injured workers and damaged hundreds of nearby homes and businesses. Nothing about a discussion of legal responsibility should obscure that human cost. But tragedies of this magnitude make clear rules about accountability more important, not less.
The litigation that followed raises a question that businesses in both Texas and across the country cannot afford to ignore: when a company fails to correct known safety hazards, how far should responsibility extend to the outside firms that serviced its equipment? The answer could shape the legal obligations of contractors and technical specialists across the state and beyond.
Plaintiffs have sought damages from Detcon and its former parent company, 3M, over work on Watson Grinding’s gas-detection devices. They allege negligent service and inadequate warnings. The companies dispute those claims, contending that their technicians repeatedly identified and flagged problems which, from the record, it appears Watson Grinding ignored, and that warning a customer that equipment needs attention is different from being responsible for making that customer act.
As a Texas attorney, I believe that distinction deserves serious consideration. Identifying a hazard does not automatically give a technician authority to compel repairs or take over the customer’s operations. Liability must turn on each company’s responsibilities, whether it performed its work negligently and whether that conduct caused the harm.
The U.S.Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board’s (CSB) findings make Watson Grinding’s failures clear. A worn, improperly secured hose separated, allowing combustible propylene to escape. The site had also kept a manual gas isolation valve open through the night. Investigators further identified deficiencies in process-safety controls and emergency-response preparedness.
The gas-detection devices involved in the litigation were part of a larger safety arrangement: detectors were supposed to signal computer controls that activated alarms, started ventilation fans and closed gas valves. The CSB found that Watson Grinding had disabled this protection by disconnecting the detection system from those controls. Calibration contractors raised written concerns in 2013, 2016 and 2019. Management discussed the problem again two weeks before the explosion, yet Watson Grinding left it uncorrected.
Watson Grinding was therefore operating with a known gap in its protection against a catastrophic gas leak. This required corrective action, not simply another routine service visit. A technician could explain the danger and recommend action, but it is incumbent on management to arrange the necessary work and suspend unsafe operations. Ultimately, the company running the plant, not a third-party service provider, had to act to ensure its operations were safe.
In one trial, plaintiffs’ counsel even argued that Detcon should have shut down Watson Grinding’s operations. But nothing in the public record has shown that a professional engineer was involved in the routine maintenance and calibration process that Watson Grinding ultimately ignored here. Even if a licensed professional engineer had evaluated the site on behalf of a contractor, that status would not—and should not—expand a contractor’s tort duties to the public. While an engineer may face strict professional and ethical duties regarding public safety under licensing board rules, those ethical frameworks govern professional conduct; they do not empower the professional engineer to take over operations, nor do they broaden a contractor’s civil duty to the public or transform an outside service provider into an operational guarantor. Drawing that firm line is essential to keeping accountability where it belongs.
Every company should answer for negligent work. But a duty to inspect and warn should not automatically become a continuing obligation to ensure the customer follows that warning. What the contractor agreed to do, what it actually did and whether its failures caused the accident must determine its responsibility.
Juries have reached different conclusions, with one clearing Detcon and others finding it partly responsible. Appeals in Texas courts will test the legal foundations of those claims. And although Watson Grinding’s bankruptcy complicates damages recovery, another company’s ability to pay should not substitute for proof of negligence.
The implications of this case extend far beyond these defendants. Businesses in Texas and across the U.S. routinely hire specialists to inspect machinery and provide maintenance or technical guidance. Those relationships depend on knowing who must identify a problem, who has agreed to fix it and who decides whether operations continue.
A ruling that expands a contractor’s duties could affect service providers throughout Texas. Its reasoning could also influence service agreements and litigation elsewhere, by setting a concerning new precedent that could be used to establish law in other states or federally. Businesses serving multiple markets would have reason to reassess what obligations their service agreements create and whether they will even continue to serve those markets.
If limited work carries open-ended responsibility for a customer’s later operational decisions, insurance and contracting costs could rise. Vendors may restrict assistance beyond their assigned work, making specialized safety services harder for smaller businesses to obtain.
Texas can protect injured families while preserving clear standards of accountability. Courts should require proof of each defendant’s own negligence and keep businesses responsible for correcting hazards within their operations. A limited service assignment should not become an indefinite legal obligation to oversee a customer’s business long after the assigned work is complete.
Charles B. Meyer, BCL (Oxon.), FCIArb, Reg. Pat. Att’y, is a Texas attorney and arbitrator based in The Woodlands and the former Chief Legal Officer of BlackBerry. He is a frequent commentator on Texas legal and policy matters, with work published in Bloomberg Law, Law360, and other publications. He is the founder of the Law Firm of Chuck Meyer, PLLC.
