| Venue: |
Ct. App. 7th Cir.
|
|
| Facts: |
A tank car of acrylonitrile spills 25% of its contents. This costs
the RR Co $981K to clean up-- there were evacuations, and it's
toxic and explody. |
|
| Posture: |
Summary judgment for plaintiff. A procedural thicket of cross-appeals. |
|
| Issue: |
Should the shipper of a hazardous chemical by rail be strictly liable for
the consequences of a spill en route? |
|
| Holding: |
No. Reversed. |
|
| Rule: |
For strict liability, here are some prongs:
- The probability of harm must be great
- The harm that would ensue if the risk came true could be great
- Due care in the activity can't prevent such harm
- The activity isn't a matter of common usage
- The activity is inappropriate for the place where it happened
- The value of the activity to the community doesn't offset the
risk
|
|
| Reasoning: |
This case isn't like the prongs. The accident could have been prevented
with due care. There aren't really feasible other locations
for it. This is a matter of common usage, and there is utility
to the community (finding otherwise would impose burdens on many
other substances). |
|
| Dicta: |
"Expected accident cost:" loss expectancy discounted by probability.
This is posner, by the way. |
|