New Meadows Holding Co. v. Washington Water Power Co.
102 Wash. 2d 495, 687 P.2d 212 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The underground transmission of natural gas is not an abnormally dangerous activity subject to strict liability. Liability for damages resulting from gas leaks from underground pipes is determined by a negligence standard.
Facts:
- Approximately seven years prior to the incident, Cable Way, Inc., while laying telephone cable for Pacific Northwest Bell (PNB), damaged a 2-inch gas transmission line owned by Washington Water Power Company (WWP).
- On December 31, 1978, natural gas began leaking from the damaged line.
- Due to frozen ground, the leaking gas could not permeate the surface and instead traveled laterally underground.
- The gas entered the drain field of a residence rented by Mark Brown from New Meadows Holding Company (New Meadows), accumulating within the structure.
- While attempting to light an oil stove, Mark Brown unwittingly ignited the accumulated natural gas.
- The resulting explosion destroyed the residence and caused serious injury to Brown.
Procedural Posture:
- New Meadows Holding Company sued Washington Water Power Company (WWP), Pacific Northwest Bell (PNB), and Cable Way, Inc. in trial court.
- WWP filed a cross-claim for indemnity against PNB and Cable Way.
- PNB moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims from New Meadows and WWP, asserting they were barred by a statute of limitation. New Meadows did not contest the motion.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for PNB, dismissing it from the case.
- In a separate action, plaintiffs Mark Brown and New Meadows sued WWP and were granted summary judgment against WWP on the issue of strict liability.
- New Meadows and WWP (as appellants) appealed the summary judgment dismissals in favor of PNB (as appellee) to the Court of Appeals.
- WWP (as appellant) was granted discretionary review by the Court of Appeals on the summary judgment order finding it strictly liable to the plaintiffs (as appellees).
- The Court of Appeals consolidated the cases, reversed the dismissal of WWP's cross-claim against PNB, affirmed the dismissal of New Meadows' claim against PNB, and reversed the summary judgment holding WWP strictly liable.
- Plaintiffs Brown and New Meadows (as petitioners) successfully petitioned the Washington Supreme Court for discretionary review of the Court of Appeals decision on strict liability.
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 underground transmission of natural gas constitute an abnormally dangerous activity for which strict liability should be imposed?
Opinions:
Majority - Dolliver, J.
No, the underground transmission of natural gas is not an abnormally dangerous activity subject to strict liability. The court applied the six-factor test from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 and found that while natural gas presents a high degree of risk and potential for great harm (factors a & b), the remaining factors weigh against imposing strict liability. Crucially, the court determined that the high degree of risk can be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care and adherence to extensive federal and state safety regulations (factor c). Furthermore, the transmission of natural gas is a matter of common usage, appropriate for its location in communities, and its value to the community is not outweighed by its dangers (factors d, e, & f). The court distinguished this case from Siegler v. Kuhlman, noting that buried pipelines are not exposed to the same surface-level dangers as hauling gasoline on a public highway.
Dissenting - Rosellini, J.
Yes, the underground transmission of natural gas should be considered an abnormally dangerous activity subject to strict liability. The dissent argues the majority misapplied the Restatement test and wrongly departed from the precedent of Siegler v. Kuhlman. It contends that the risk of explosion from escaped gas cannot truly be eliminated by reasonable care (factor c), as once gas escapes, an accident is often unavoidable, similar to escaped gasoline. The dissent emphasizes that policy considerations, such as risk allocation to the party benefiting from the activity and incentivizing greater safety measures, strongly support imposing strict liability on the gas company.
Concurring - Pearson, J.
No, strict liability should not be imposed. The concurrence agrees with the majority's result but adds a specific interpretation of the Restatement test. Citing comment h to § 520, the author argues that the first three factors (high risk, great harm, inability to eliminate risk) are not sufficient on their own to impose strict liability. At least one of the final three factors (common usage, appropriateness of location, value to community) must also weigh in favor of strict liability, and in this case, none of them do.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies negligence as the governing standard for liability involving underground public utility lines in Washington, setting a high bar for classifying an activity as 'abnormally dangerous.' By focusing on the manageability of risk through reasonable care and regulation, the court limits the application of strict liability for essential, common, and highly regulated industries. The ruling provides a clear analytical framework under the Restatement § 520, emphasizing that the inability to eliminate risk through due care is a critical factor. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to recover against utilities without proving specific acts of carelessness, thereby protecting providers of essential services from automatic liability for accidents caused by their operations.
Unlock the full brief for New Meadows Holding Co. v. Washington Water Power Co.