Valentine v. Pioneer Chlor Alkali Co.
109 Nev. 1107, 1993 Nev. LEXIS 166, 864 P.2d 295 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Nevada law imposes strict liability for harm to a person, land, or chattels resulting from an abnormally dangerous activity, even if the utmost care was exercised to prevent the harm. The determination of whether an activity is abnormally dangerous is a fact-specific inquiry guided by a six-factor test.
Facts:
- Pioneer operated a facility that engaged in the manufacture, storage, and control of liquified chlorine and chlorine gas.
- The Valentines allege that Pioneer's facility released liquified chlorine or chlorine gas into the environment.
- The Valentines' son was allegedly injured as a result of this release.
Procedural Posture:
- The Valentines, on behalf of their son, sued Pioneer in a Nevada state district court, asserting claims for negligence and strict liability.
- Pioneer removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.
- Pioneer filed a motion to dismiss the strict liability cause of action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The U.S. District Court certified two questions of law to the Nevada Supreme Court.
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 Nevada law impose strict liability for harm caused by an abnormally dangerous activity, and does the operation of a facility that manufactures and stores liquified chlorine and chlorine gas constitute such an activity per se?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, as to the first question; the court declines to answer the second. Nevada adopts the doctrine of strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities as articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 519. However, whether an activity is abnormally dangerous is a fact-specific determination that cannot be made as a matter of law based on the substance involved; it must be decided by the trial court using the six-factor test outlined in Restatement § 520. The court reasoned that adopting this form of strict liability is a natural extension of its existing jurisprudence in strict products liability. It explicitly adopted the six-factor test from § 520 to guide lower courts. The court refused to make a blanket ruling that all activities involving chlorine are abnormally dangerous, stating that the analysis must focus on the defendant's activity as a whole, not just the abstract properties of the substance. Because the record was too sparse to apply the factors, the court left the determination to the federal district court.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes a new cause of action in Nevada tort law by adopting the doctrine of strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities from the Restatement (Second) of Torts. By refusing to declare the manufacture of chlorine abnormally dangerous per se, the court mandates a case-by-case, fact-intensive analysis using the six-factor test. This approach prevents the creation of broad categories of liability and ensures that future determinations will depend heavily on the specific circumstances presented, such as location, safety measures, and community value.
