Foster v. Preston Mill Co.
44 Wash. 2d 440, 268 P.2d 645 (1954)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of strict liability for ultrahazardous activities applies only to harm that results from the specific type of risk that makes the activity ultrahazardous, not to harm resulting from the extraordinary sensitivity of the plaintiff's property.
Facts:
- B. W. Foster operated a mink ranch in a rural area.
- During their annual whelping season, which begins around May 1st, mother mink are very excitable and prone to killing their kittens if disturbed by loud noises or vibrations.
- Preston Mill Company began road construction about 2.25 miles from Foster's ranch, which required the use of explosives for blasting twice a day.
- The noise and vibrations from the blasting caused Foster's mother mink to become agitated and kill their kittens.
- After dozens of kittens were killed, Foster's ranch manager notified Preston Mill Company's manager of the situation.
- After being notified, Preston Mill Company reduced the amount of explosives used but continued the blasting operations.
- Stopping the road construction during the whelping season would have been impractical and costly for Preston Mill Company's logging schedule.
Procedural Posture:
- B. W. Foster (plaintiff) sued Preston Mill Company (defendant) in a Washington state trial court.
- The case was tried before a judge without a jury.
- The trial court entered a judgment for Foster, finding Preston Mill Company absolutely liable for the damages that occurred after it was given notice of the problem.
- Preston Mill Company (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of absolute liability apply to damages caused by blasting when the harm results from the peculiar sensitivity of the plaintiff's commercial animals, rather than from the type of physical risk, such as flying debris or violent concussions, that makes blasting an ultrahazardous activity?
Opinions:
Majority - Hamley, J.
No, the doctrine of absolute liability does not apply in this case. Strict liability for ultrahazardous activities like blasting must be confined to consequences which lie within the extraordinary risk that makes the activity dangerous. The risk that makes blasting ultrahazardous is physical damage from flying debris or violent concussions affecting persons and property, not the risk that moderate noise and vibration might frighten hypersensitive animals. The harm in this case was caused by the 'exceedingly nervous disposition of mink,' which constitutes an extraordinary and unusual use of land by the plaintiff. Therefore, as a matter of policy, the responsibility for the loss must lie with the plaintiff's uniquely sensitive enterprise, not with the defendant conducting an otherwise lawful activity.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines the scope of strict liability for ultrahazardous activities by linking liability to a specific type of foreseeable harm. It establishes the principle that the harm suffered must be the kind of harm that makes the activity ultrahazardous in the first place. The decision prevents the doctrine from becoming a form of absolute insurance for any and all damages, particularly those stemming from a plaintiff's hypersensitive activities or property. This limitation requires future courts to engage in a more nuanced 'proximate cause' style analysis, ensuring that liability is tied directly to the specific dangers the doctrine was meant to address.
Unlock the full brief for Foster v. Preston Mill Co.