Walker Shoe Store, Inc. v. Howard's Hobby Shop
327 N.W.2d 725, 1982 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1633 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities does not apply to the common and routine storage of fuel oil for heating commercial premises, especially when the storage system is inspectable and maintained, and the escape of the substance is not an expected or inevitable occurrence.
Facts:
- Walker Shoe Store, Inc. (plaintiff) and Howard’s Hobby Shop (defendant) operated businesses in adjoining properties.
- Defendant heated his property with fuel oil stored in two basement tanks with a combined capacity of 550 gallons.
- The heating system had been inspected when the defendant purchased the building and was checked regularly by qualified personnel.
- Defendant had no knowledge that the tanks were inadequate or unsafe prior to the incident.
- A leak developed in one or both of the tanks, allowing fuel oil to escape into the defendant's basement.
- The escaped oil was subsequently ignited by the pilot light of a hot water heater.
- The resulting fire caused significant smoke and fire damage to the plaintiff's adjacent shoe store.
Procedural Posture:
- Walker Shoe Store, Inc. filed a three-count petition against Howard's Hobby Shop in an Iowa trial court, alleging negligence, res ipsa loquitur, and strict liability.
- Defendant filed an answer to the first two counts and a motion to dismiss the strict liability count.
- The trial court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss as untimely.
- Defendant then filed an application for adjudication of law points on the strict liability count, which the trial court denied.
- Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the strict liability count.
- The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, awarding $25,074.45 in damages.
- Defendant (appellant) appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
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 strict liability apply to a commercial property owner for fire damage to an adjacent property caused by a leak from a standard, inspectable fuel oil tank used for heating?
Opinions:
Majority - LeGrand, J.
No. The doctrine of strict liability, as articulated in Lubin v. City of Iowa City, does not apply to these facts. The court distinguished this case from Lubin, where a city was held strictly liable for a water main break. In Lubin, the water main was underground, beyond inspection and maintenance, and its eventual failure was considered inevitable. In contrast, the defendant's fuel oil tanks were accessible for inspection and repair, and were in fact periodically inspected. Therefore, the escape of oil was neither expected nor inevitable. The court also noted that the equitable, loss-spreading rationale of Lubin—where a utility can distribute the cost of accidents among all its customers—is not present in a dispute between two private, neighboring business owners.
Analysis:
This decision significantly cabins the application of the strict liability doctrine established in Lubin v. City of Iowa City. It clarifies that strict liability is reserved for activities involving non-reciprocal risks where harm is virtually inevitable due to the nature of the enterprise, such as maintaining uninspectable public infrastructure. By refusing to extend the doctrine to the common practice of storing heating oil, the court reinforced negligence as the default standard for such cases. This precedent prevents the expansion of strict liability to ordinary commercial activities and requires plaintiffs in similar situations to prove a breach of a duty of care.
