Edwards v. Post Transportation Co.
91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2171, 279 Cal. Rptr. 231, 228 Cal.App.3d 980 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An activity involving a dangerous substance is not an ultrahazardous activity subject to strict liability if the risk of harm can be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care.
Facts:
- Norris Industries operated a manufacturing plant with a waste treatment facility that included two large storage tanks.
- One tank was for sodium bisulfite and was fitted with a plastic pipe; the other was for sulfuric acid and was fitted with a stainless steel pipe.
- During construction, the pipes were inadvertently switched, connecting the plastic pipe to the tank designated for sulfuric acid.
- To remedy the error, Norris decided to switch the functions of the tanks but failed to label them adequately to reflect the change.
- Post Transportation Company (Post) was hired to deliver a truckload of sulfuric acid to the Norris facility.
- A Post driver, upon arrival, was directed by Norris personnel to pump the sulfuric acid into the pipe connected to the former sodium bisulfite tank.
- The sulfuric acid reacted with a residue of sodium bisulfite and water in the tank, creating a severe chemical reaction that released a large cloud of toxic gas.
- Charles Edwards, a Norris employee working in an adjacent area, was overcome by the gas and suffered severe injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Edwards sued Post Transportation Company in a state trial court for personal injuries.
- Edwards's case was presented to a jury on theories of negligence.
- The trial court refused to allow Edwards to argue a theory of strict liability based on an ultrahazardous activity.
- Consequently, the trial court refused to give the jury a standard jury instruction on strict liability for ultrahazardous activities.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Post Transportation Company, and the court entered judgment accordingly.
- Edwards, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the intermediate court of appeal.
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 the transportation and delivery of sulfuric acid an ultrahazardous activity that subjects the transporter to strict liability for resulting harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Froehlich, J.
No. The transportation and delivery of sulfuric acid is not an ultrahazardous activity because the risks associated with it can be eliminated through the exercise of reasonable care. The court applied the six-factor test from the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 520 to determine if the activity was 'abnormally dangerous.' Although sulfuric acid involves a high degree of risk, is likely to cause great harm, and is not a matter of common usage, the court found the third factor to be dispositive: the 'inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care.' Expert testimony established that while sulfuric acid is dangerous, the risks of handling it can be eliminated through proper procedures and care. The theory of strict liability for ultrahazardous activities applies only when the danger cannot be eliminated through care. Because the risk here was manageable with due care, ordinary negligence principles are sufficient to allocate liability, and strict liability is inappropriate.
Concurring - Wiener, Acting P. J.
No. The judgment should be affirmed, but for different reasons. First, existing California Supreme Court precedent already established that sulfuric acid is not an 'inherently a dangerous agency' that would trigger strict liability. Second, and more importantly, the injury was not caused by the activity Post was engaged in—the transportation and delivery of the acid. Post's delivery was completed safely when the acid arrived at the location specified by the customer. The harm arose from the subsequent storage of the acid in an improperly designed and maintained facility, which is a risk attributable to Norris, not a risk inherent in the act of transportation. Therefore, the injury was outside the scope of the risk for which Post could be held strictly liable.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of the ultrahazardous activity doctrine in California by emphasizing that the inability to eliminate risk through due care is a determinative factor. It demonstrates that even activities involving highly dangerous chemicals may not qualify for strict liability if proper safety procedures can mitigate the inherent risks. The decision narrows the scope of strict liability, pushing cases involving industrial accidents back towards a negligence framework where the plaintiff must prove the defendant was at fault. This precedent makes it more difficult to hold defendants strictly liable for industrial activities, requiring courts to focus on the manageability of the risk rather than just its severity.
Unlock the full brief for Edwards v. Post Transportation Co.