Judson v. Giant Powder Co.
107 Cal. 549, 1895 Cal. LEXIS 792, 40 P. 1020 (1895)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an event causing injury is of a type that does not ordinarily occur without negligence and is caused by an instrumentality within the defendant's exclusive control, a presumption of negligence arises, shifting the burden to the defendant to offer an explanation.
Facts:
- Respondents owned property adjacent to appellant's powder factory.
- Respondents had previously sold the land to the appellant for the express purpose of manufacturing dynamite.
- On the morning of the incident, an explosion originated in the appellant's nitro-glycerine house during working hours.
- The initial explosion triggered a series of subsequent explosions in other factory buildings, culminating in the explosion of two large magazines used for storing dynamite.
- These final explosions resulted in the complete destruction of the respondents' factory, residences, and stock on hand.
- All of appellant's employees present at the site of the initial explosion were killed, leaving no direct witnesses to testify as to the cause.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondents sued appellant in a trial court to recover damages for negligence.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the respondents for $41,164.75.
- The trial court denied the appellant's motion for a new trial.
- Appellant (the powder company) appealed the judgment and the denial of the new trial motion to the Supreme Court of California.
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 mere fact of an explosion at a dynamite factory, which is under the exclusive control of the defendant, create a presumption of negligence sufficient to establish a prima facie case for the plaintiff?
Opinions:
Majority - Garoutte, J.
Yes, the proof of an explosion at the dynamite factory draws with it a presumption of negligence sufficient to establish a prima facie case. The principle of res ipsa loquitur ('the thing speaks for itself') applies regardless of whether a contractual relationship exists between the parties. The presumption arises from the inherent nature of the act; ordinary experience dictates that dynamite factories do not explode if proper care is exercised. Since the factory was under the appellant's exclusive management and control, the unexplained explosion affords reasonable evidence that it arose from a want of care. The court rejected the appellant's argument that respondents assumed the risk (volenti non fit injuria) by selling the land for this purpose, holding that they only assumed the ordinary risks of a carefully operated factory, not the risks of appellant's negligence.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in tort law, particularly in cases not involving a contractual relationship. It solidifies the principle that plaintiffs can establish a prima facie case of negligence through circumstantial evidence when direct evidence is unavailable, such as in this industrial accident where all witnesses were killed. The decision shifts the evidentiary burden to the defendant in control of the dangerous instrumentality to prove they exercised due care, significantly aiding plaintiffs in complex tort litigation against corporations engaged in hazardous activities. This precedent reinforces that engaging in an ultra-hazardous activity does not shield a party from liability for negligence, even if neighbors are aware of the activity's inherent risks.
Unlock the full brief for Judson v. Giant Powder Co.