Also known as: inherently dangerous activities · ultrahazardous activity · abnormally dangerous activity
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An activity that can be carried out only by the exercise of special skill and care and that involves a grave risk of serious harm if done unskillfully or carelessly. The activity triggers strict liability rules that limit certain defenses such as contributory negligence and that extend liability for resulting intrusions onto land even when the entry itself is unintentional.
Imani Idowu hired Imperial Motors to transport volatile chemicals by rail through a populated area. A derailment released fumes onto adjacent property owned by Isaiah Ishikawa. Ishikawa had ignored posted warnings and remained outside during the known transport window. Because the activity qualifies as inherently dangerous, Ishikawa's decision to stay outside does not bar recovery under strict liability principles.
Insight Consulting conducted pressure testing on chemical tanks near the boundary with Ingrid Innes's fabrication shop. An uninspected relief valve failed and released corrosive vapor that drifted onto Innes's yard, pitting equipment. The testing operation created the risk of harmful entry even without an intentional crossing, so Insight faces liability for the resulting damage.
Ira Irving operated a combine harvester along the shared line with Isabelle Inman's organic field. An undetectable internal brake defect caused the machine to roll a few feet across the boundary and flatten kale. Because the operation was neither an inherently dangerous activity nor conducted negligently, Irving avoids liability for the unintentional entry.
American Cyanamid arranged shipment of acrylonitrile by rail through a dense urban corridor. A spill occurred at a switching yard operated by Indiana Harbor Belt. The carrier sought contribution from the shipper under strict liability theories tied to the hazardous nature of the cargo movement.
American Cyanamid Company, a chemical manufacturer, loaded 20,000 gallons of liquid acrylonitrile into a leased railroad tank car at its plant in Louisiana on January 2, 1979. The following day, a Missouri Pacific Railroad train picked up the car for transport to a Cyanamid plant in New Jersey. The car arrived at the Blue Island railroad yard operated by Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company, a switching line in the Chicago metropolitan area, on the morning of January 9, 1979. Several hours after arrival, employees noticed fluid gushing from the bottom outlet of the car due to a broken lid. After two hours, the leak was stopped, but approximately 5,000 gallons of acrylonitrile had spilled. Local authorities evacuated nearby homes for a few hours. The Illinois Department of Environmental Protection ordered decontamination measures that cost the switching line $981,022.75. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad filed a two-count complaint against American Cyanamid in federal district court. One count alleged negligence in maintaining the tank car. The other count alleged strict liability for engaging in an abnormally dangerous activity by shipping the chemical through a metropolitan area. The district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on the strict liability count for $981,022.75. The court later dismissed the negligence count with prejudice to permit an appeal. The case reached the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit after an initial appeal was dismissed for lack of finality under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The district judge then dismissed the negligence claim to create a final judgment. The switching line cross-appealed the dismissal of the negligence count.
View caseOmega Flex supplied flexible gas piping later installed in a residence. A lightning strike caused the piping to fail and release gas that exploded. The buyer sued the manufacturer, arguing that the product's installation and use involved risks that could not be eliminated by ordinary care.
Around 2:30 a.m. on June 20, 2007, neighbors reported a fire that had erupted at the home of the Tinchers in Downingtown, Pennsylvania. Investigators concluded that a lightning strike near the Tinchers’ home caused a small puncture in the corrugated stainless steel tubing transporting natural gas to a fireplace. The CSST was part of the TracPipe System manufactured and sold by Omega Flex. The resulting fire burned for over an hour and caused significant damage to the home and belongings. Following the fire, the Tinchers reported the incident to their insurer, United Services Automobile Association. USAA compensated the Tinchers for their loss up to the limit of their policy and received an assignment of liability claims. The Tinchers suffered an additional out-of-pocket loss because a portion of their claimed loss exceeded the limits of the USAA policy. In January 2008, the Tinchers filed a complaint against Omega Flex in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas. They asserted claims premised upon theories of strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty, with the strict liability claim based on Section 402A of the Second Restatement. The case proceeded to a jury trial in October 2010 before Judge Ronald C. Nagle. The Tinchers offered expert testimony that the CSST walls were only one-hundredth of an inch thick and therefore inherently defective because lightning-generated currents were highly likely to perforate them. Omega Flex presented its own experts who testified that the TracPipe System met all applicable industry standards. They also stated that the lightning strike lacked sufficient energy to cause the puncture and that an attempted bonding clamp found disconnected after the fire may have prevented the incident if properly installed. After the close of evidence, the trial court denied Omega Flex’s motions for nonsuit and directed verdict. On October 20, 2010, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Tinchers on the strict liability claim. The jury awarded compensatory damages totaling $958,895.85 plus delay damages. The jury found for Omega Flex on the negligence claim. Omega Flex filed post-trial motions that the trial court denied, leading to entry of judgment. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment in September 2012. The Supreme Court granted Omega Flex’s petition for allowance of appeal limited to the question of whether to replace the strict liability analysis of the Second Restatement with that of the Third Restatement.
View caseConsolidated Rail operated a rail yard where a tank car caught fire. Municipal authorities evacuated a one-mile radius that included People Express Airlines' terminal, forcing cancellation of flights. The airline sought recovery for business losses caused by the evacuation triggered by the hazardous cargo incident.
On July 22, 1981, a fire began in the Port Newark freight yard of defendant Consolidated Rail Corporation when ethylene oxide manufactured by defendant BASF Wyandotte Company escaped from a tank car owned by defendant Union Tank Car Company and leased to BASF. The tank car was punctured during a coupling operation with another rail car and ignited. The municipal authorities evacuated the area within a one-mile radius surrounding the fire, which included the North Terminal building of Newark International Airport where plaintiff People Express Airlines’ business operations are based. People Express employees were prohibited from using the North Terminal for twelve hours, although the feared explosion never occurred. The plaintiff contends that it suffered business-interruption losses as a result of the evacuation. These losses consisted of cancelled scheduled flights and lost reservations because employees were unable to answer the telephones to accept bookings. Fixed operating expenses allocable to the evacuation period were incurred and paid despite the offices being closed. No physical damage to airline property and no personal injury occurred. According to the original complaint, each defendant acted negligently and these acts proximately caused the plaintiff’s harm. An amended complaint alleged additional counts of nuisance and strict liability. Conrail moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion on the ground that absent property damage or personal injury economic loss was not recoverable in tort. The trial court also granted summary judgment motions by BASF and Union Car on the same reasoning. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment and remanded the cause to the trial court. This Court granted defendant Union Car’s petition for certification, in which Conrail and BASF joined. Plaintiff asserted at oral argument that at least some of the defendants were aware from prior experiences that ethylene oxide is a highly volatile substance. Further, emergency response plans in case of an accident had been prepared. When the fire occurred that gave rise to this lawsuit, some of the defendants’ consultants helped determine how much of the surrounding area to evacuate.
View caseContributory negligence does not bar recovery against the party carrying on an inherently dangerous activity. The rule preserves strict liability even when the plaintiff acted carelessly, unless the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably assumed the specific risk.
Supporting sources
An activity qualifies when it creates a high probability of serious harm that cannot be eliminated by reasonable care. Negligent or reckless conduct during such an activity that causes a thing to enter another's land supports liability if the entry produces actual harm to protected interests.
Supporting sources
An unintentional and non-negligent entry does not trigger liability when the actor is not engaged in an inherently dangerous activity. The exception removes the usual protection for accidental entries once the activity itself carries inherent danger.
Supporting sources
A principal remains liable for harm caused by an independent contractor's negligence when the work itself is inherently dangerous. The exception prevents the principal from shifting responsibility for risks that require special precautions regardless of who performs the work.
…The other count asserts that the transportation of acrylonitrile in bulk through the Chicago metropolitan area is an abnormally dangerous activity, for the consequences of which the shipper (Cyanamid) is strictly liable to the switching line, which bore the financial brunt of those consequences because of the decontamination measures…