Actiesselskabet Ingrid v. Central R.
216 F. 72, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1321 (1914)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Absent proof of negligence, a common carrier, shipper, or contractor handling dangerous but lawful goods during transportation is not strictly liable for damages resulting from an unforeseen explosion under the doctrines of Rylands v. Fletcher, nuisance, or res ipsa loquitur.
Facts:
- The ship Ingrid arrived from Buenos Ayres with cargo and was moored at Pier 7 of the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey in Jersey City, under the railroad company's orders.
- The E. I. Du Pont de Nemours Powder Company shipped 75% gelatine dynamite from Kenville, New Jersey, to itself at Jersey City, transported in three cars by the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey.
- James Healing, contracted by the powder company, was engaged in transferring 670 cases of dynamite from railroad car No. 91,442 on Pier 7 to his steam lighter, the Katherine W., using a plank.
- During the transfer, the dynamite exploded, completely wrecking the Ingrid, the Katherine W., car No. 91,442, severely damaging Pier 7, and killing all personnel on board the lighter.
- The precise cause of the dynamite explosion was not determined or proven by any evidence.
- Pier 7 was recognized by the Jersey City inspector of combustibles as a suitable, remote, and the 'best place' in the area for the transfer of explosives.
- The 300 cases of dynamite remaining in the car had been on Pier 7 for six days due to delays in the export steamer, a customary allowance for export shipments under government regulations.
Procedural Posture:
- The owner and master of the ship Ingrid (libelants) filed a libel (an admiralty lawsuit) in a federal District Court, seeking $30,162.65 in damages from the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey, the E. I. Du Pont de Nemours Powder Company, and James Healing (respondents).
- The District Court dismissed the libel, finding in favor of the respondents.
- The libelants appealed the District Court's decision to the Circuit Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a common carrier, shipper, or contractor strictly liable for damages caused by the explosion of dynamite during transportation or transfer, where no negligence is proven, under doctrines such as Rylands v. Fletcher, nuisance, or res ipsa loquitur?
Opinions:
Majority - Rogers, Circuit Judge
No, a common carrier, shipper, or contractor is not strictly liable for damages caused by the explosion of dynamite during transportation or transfer where no negligence is proven. The court rejected the application of Rylands v. Fletcher, stating that this doctrine, which imposes strict liability for dangerous things brought onto land, has been 'quite generally disapproved' in the United States, conflicting with the common law principle that liability for tort requires a wrongful act or negligence. The court emphasized that common carriers have a legal obligation to transport such freight, and any unavoidable risks associated with performing this duty without negligence must be borne by others as an incident of legitimate business. The court further found that the situation did not constitute a nuisance. While the storage of large quantities of explosives can be a nuisance, Pier 7 was a suitable and isolated location for handling explosives, and the dynamite was considered to be in the course of transportation, not storage, given the delays common to export shipments and the regulatory environment. The inspector of combustibles confirmed Pier 7's suitability and remoteness. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was deemed inapplicable because the dynamite was not in the 'exclusive control' of any single defendant, nor did the accident clearly identify the wrongdoer. With multiple parties (the railroad company, the powder company, and Healing) involved and the actual cause unknown, it was impossible to presume negligence on the part of any specific respondent. Finally, the court concluded that the railroad company, as a wharfinger, was not liable for failing to provide specific warning of the dynamite's presence. While a wharfinger must warn of known dangerous obstructions, the accidental explosion of dynamite, though serious, was not an 'imminent and great' danger that was 'reasonably expected' to occur. The presence of danger placards on the cars was noted, and the risk assumed by the railroad when moving the Ingrid pertained to the shifting operation itself, not a general guarantee of safety at the new berth.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the American rejection of strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher for dangerous activities undertaken lawfully and without negligence, especially in the context of common carriers transporting essential goods. It clarifies the strict requirements for applying res ipsa loquitur, emphasizing the need for exclusive control and clear identification of a wrongdoer when multiple parties could be responsible. The ruling also defines the boundaries of nuisance liability, indicating that lawful activities involving dangerous materials in suitable, regulated locations do not automatically constitute a nuisance, particularly when the materials are in transit. This precedent limits the scope of liability for unavoidable accidents in critical industries.
