Langlois v. Allied Chemical Corporation
258 La. 1067, 249 So. 2d 133, 1971 La. LEXIS 4228 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An entity engaging in an ultrahazardous activity is subject to strict liability for harm it causes, and a first responder injured in the course of their duties does not assume the risk of that harm unless they subjectively and voluntarily consent to a known, specific danger.
Facts:
- Allied Chemical Corporation's plant utilized antimony pentachloride, a highly poisonous gas, in its manufacturing process.
- A pipe at Allied's plant ruptured, causing the poisonous gas to escape and drift into the surrounding neighborhood as a haze.
- Emmanuel Langlois, a fireman, was dispatched with his crew to the adjacent property of Delta Southern Tank Corporation to rescue two men reportedly trapped by gas.
- Upon arriving at Delta's property, the crew was informed the men had been extricated, but Langlois was exposed to the gas for approximately five minutes.
- During this exposure, Langlois experienced a tickling throat, smarting eyes, and began coughing.
- Langlois was further exposed to the gas during the return trip to the fire station and while washing down the fire truck at the station.
- Although his truck was equipped with breathing devices, Langlois did not use one, as it was difficult to wear while driving and neither he nor his superiors believed it was necessary at the time.
- Four days later, Langlois was hospitalized for five days and treated for chemical bronchitis as a result of the gas inhalation.
Procedural Posture:
- Emmanuel Langlois sued Allied Chemical Corporation and its insurer in the district court (trial court) for personal injuries.
- The district court rendered a judgment in favor of Langlois, awarding him damages.
- Allied Chemical Corporation (defendant-appellant) appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the district court's judgment.
- Emmanuel Langlois (plaintiff-appellant) sought and was granted review by the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
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 assumption of risk bar a fireman from recovering damages for injuries sustained from inhaling poisonous gas released by an adjacent property owner while the fireman was responding to a rescue call?
Opinions:
Majority - Barham, J.
No. The doctrine of assumption of risk does not bar the fireman's recovery. Allied Chemical's storage of a dangerous, highly poisonous gas was an ultrahazardous activity, making it strictly liable for the resulting harm under a theory of 'fault' derived from Louisiana Civil Code Articles 2315 and 669. This liability attaches without proof of negligence. The defense of assumption of risk requires a subjective inquiry and applies only when a plaintiff, with full knowledge and appreciation of a specific danger, voluntarily exposes themself to and embraces that risk. Langlois, acting in the line of duty to rescue others on adjacent property, did not knowingly and voluntarily consent to the specific harm that occurred; he was performing his professional duty and his exposure was minimal in that context. Therefore, he did not assume the risk.
Dissenting - Hamlin, J.
Yes. The fireman's recovery should be barred. Langlois was a trained professional who knew he was responding to a gas leak and was taught to assume the worst in such situations. When he experienced physical reactions to the gas—watery eyes, coughing—it became incumbent upon him to use the available safety breathing equipment for his own protection. His failure to take these precautions constituted an assumption of the risk.
Dissenting - Summers, J.
Yes. The fireman should be barred from recovery by the assumption of risk doctrine. Firefighting is an inherently hazardous occupation. Langlois was trained on the dangers of gas, possessed safety equipment, and was taught that self-protection was a primary concern. Knowing he was responding to a dangerous gas situation and experiencing definite physical reactions to the gas, his decision not to use the breathing apparatus constituted a voluntary exposure to a known risk, which is the essence of assumption of risk.
Concurring - McCaleb, C.J.
No. The fireman should be permitted to recover, but the analysis should be based on simple negligence. Allied Chemical was clearly negligent in allowing the noxious gas to escape its premises. Given this negligence, the only question is whether Langlois assumed the risk or was contributorily negligent. The plea of assumption of risk is untenable for the reasons stated by the majority, and the facts do not support a finding of contributory negligence.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of strict liability for ultrahazardous activities within Louisiana's civil law framework, grounding it in the broad concept of 'fault' under Article 2315 rather than common law precedent. It significantly curtails the 'fireman's rule' by clarifying that a first responder does not assume the risk of all injuries inherent in their job. The ruling establishes that for the assumption of risk defense to apply, the defendant must prove the plaintiff subjectively understood and voluntarily embraced a specific, known danger, rather than merely encountering a general risk associated with their profession.
