Chavez v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15125, 413 F.Supp. 1203 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California law, a common carrier is subject to strict liability for damages caused by the transportation of ultrahazardous materials because the public policy rationale of risk distribution outweighs any potential 'public duty' exception.
Facts:
- Southern Pacific Transportation Company, a common carrier, entered into a contract with the U.S. Department of the Navy to transport bombs.
- The bombs were the property of the United States.
- On April 28, 1973, Southern Pacific was hauling approximately eighteen boxcars loaded with these bombs from Hawthorne, Nevada, to Port Chicago, California.
- The bomb-loaded boxcars exploded while in Southern Pacific's Antelope Yard in Roseville, California.
- The explosions caused personal injuries and property destruction to the plaintiffs.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued Southern Pacific Transportation Company in federal district court to recover for damages caused by explosions.
- Plaintiffs' complaints included claims premised on a state-law theory of strict liability for the miscarriage of an ultrahazardous activity.
- Southern Pacific filed a motion to dismiss the strict liability claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under California law, is a common carrier subject to strict liability for damages resulting from the explosion of hazardous materials it is transporting, even if it has a public duty to carry them?
Opinions:
Majority - MacBride, C.J.
Yes. Under California law, a common carrier is subject to strict liability for damages caused by engaging in an ultrahazardous activity, and no exception applies merely because the carrier may have a public duty to transport the hazardous material. The court reasoned that the primary justification for imposing strict liability for ultrahazardous activities in California has evolved from simple 'fairness' to a public policy of 'risk distribution.' This policy holds that the party engaged in the dangerous enterprise for profit is in the best position to administer and spread the loss among the public that benefits from the activity. Whether the carrier is compelled to transport the dangerous cargo or does so voluntarily, the victims are equally defenseless, and the carrier remains the party best able to insure against the risk and incorporate that cost into its business. The court predicted that California would not adopt the Restatement of Torts § 521 'public duty' exception because it is inconsistent with the modern risk-distribution rationale that dominates California's strict liability jurisprudence, as seen in cases like Smith v. Lockheed Propulsion Co.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the dominance of the risk distribution rationale in California's strict liability law, extending it beyond products liability to ultrahazardous activities involving common carriers. By rejecting the 'public duty' exception found in the Restatement and other jurisdictions, the court signals that a party's status or obligation does not insulate it from strict liability if it is the most efficient cost-spreader. This case establishes a strong precedent in California for holding entities engaged in inherently dangerous but socially necessary activities, like transporting explosives, strictly liable for ensuing harm. It suggests that courts will prioritize compensating innocent victims and internalizing the true costs of dangerous enterprises over creating categorical exemptions for regulated industries.
