in Street, 96 A.L.R.2d 1007 (1964); and 38 C.J.S. Gas §§ 38, 40-42 (1943 & 1993 Cum.Supp.) for further discussion of gas companies’ liability for harm caused by escaping gas. Finally, some courts have held that compliance with relevant State and federal statutes and regulations may be considered in determining whether a gas company has acted reasonably. For example, it has been held that there was sufficient evidence to uphold a jury’s finding that the defendant gas company had made a thorough inspection to discover leaks when it followed federal mandates as to the method of inspection and, in fact, inspected more frequently than required. See Gray v. Enserch, Inc., 665 S.W.2d 601, 604 (Tex.Ct.App.1984); see also Kearney v. Kansas Pub. Serv. Co., 233 Kan. 492, 665 P.2d 757, 766 (1983) (<HOLDING>). With these principles in mind, we turn to the
holding plaintiffs alleged a strong inference of negligence with respect to stock backdating where defendants were charged with ensuring compliance with accounting standards and making certain that financial statements and proxy statements were accurate holding that where there is no essential conflict as to the facts and the evidence the trial court was correct in refusing to submit the theory of strict liability to the jury holding that trial court was correct to exclude evidence of gas companys compliance with state and federal regulations including those promulgated under the natural gas pipeline safety act where there was no showing of which sections were complied with and that they were relevant to the alleged negligence holding that although compliance with administrative safety regulations did not establish due care it was evidence of due care holding that regulations promulgated pursuant to the ieepa and the trading with the ene my act were constitutional