Siegler v. Kuhlman
81 Wn.2d 448, 502 P.2d 1181 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
One who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity, such as transporting large quantities of gasoline on public highways, is subject to strict liability for harm resulting from that activity, even if the utmost care has been exercised to prevent the harm.
Facts:
- On November 22, 1967, Aaron L. Kuhlman was driving a truck for Pacific Intermountain Express, hauling a trailer tank containing 4,800 gallons of gasoline.
- While Kuhlman was driving on a freeway offramp, the trailer tank disengaged from the truck for reasons that were never determined.
- The trailer crashed through a fence, landed upside down on Capitol Lake Drive below, and spilled its cargo of gasoline across the roadway.
- Seventeen-year-old Carol J. House was driving her car on Capitol Lake Drive in the dark.
- House's car encountered the massive pool of spilled gasoline, which ignited and engulfed her vehicle in flames.
- Carol J. House died as a result of the fire and explosion.
- The exact cause of the trailer's separation from the truck remained a mystery, despite evidence presented by the defendants of careful inspection and maintenance.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, representing the estate of Carol J. House, sued defendants Aaron L. Kuhlman and Pacific Intermountain Express in a state trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury on the theory of negligence.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants.
- The trial court entered a judgment for the defendants, from which the plaintiff appealed.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The plaintiff then petitioned the Supreme Court of Washington for review, which was granted.
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 transportation of large quantities of gasoline as cargo on a public highway constitute an abnormally dangerous activity that subjects the carrier to strict liability for harm caused by its escape?
Opinions:
Majority - Hale, J.
Yes, the transportation of gasoline as cargo on a public highway is an abnormally dangerous activity that imposes strict liability. Drawing from the principles of Fletcher v. Rylands, the court reasoned that while hauling gasoline is a common activity, the sheer quantity and hazardous nature make it extraordinary. A key justification for imposing strict liability is the high probability that a gasoline explosion and fire will destroy the very evidence needed to prove negligence. The court formally adopted the six-factor test from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 to determine what constitutes an 'abnormally dangerous activity' and found that transporting thousands of gallons of gasoline at freeway speeds meets the criteria due to the high degree of risk, the great potential for harm, and the impossibility of eliminating the risk through reasonable care.
Concurring - Rosellini, J.
Yes, the principles of strict liability should apply. The concurrence adds two policy justifications: first, the commercial transporter is in the best position to spread the loss among its customers who benefit from the activity, and second, the owner can best hold the equipment manufacturer accountable for any defects. This opinion also clarifies that strict liability should apply when the substance escapes without an intervening outside force, such as a collision caused by another negligent driver. It notes that since there was no evidence the deceased's alleged speeding was a proximate cause of the accident, the court does not reach the question of whether contributory negligence can be a defense to strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities.
Dissenting - Neill, J.
No, the court should not decide the case on the basis of strict liability because this theory was never raised or argued at the trial or intermediate appellate court levels. The dissent argues that the majority violates established rules of appellate review by deciding the case on a theory not presented by the litigants. The only issue properly before the court was the procedural effect of res ipsa loquitur. The dissent further contends that the plaintiff's proposed jury instructions on res ipsa loquitur were defective, so the trial court was correct to reject them, and the jury's verdict for the defendants should have been affirmed.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant expansion of strict liability doctrine in Washington state, extending it beyond its traditional application in land-use cases to the transportation of hazardous materials. By formally adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 test for abnormally dangerous activities, the court established a clear framework for future cases involving high-risk commercial enterprises. This ruling substantially lowers the burden for plaintiffs harmed by such activities, as they no longer need to prove a specific act of negligence, a task often made impossible when the accident itself destroys the evidence.
