Yommer v. McKenzie
1969 Md. LEXIS 701, 255 Md. 220, 257 A.2d 138 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who stores large quantities of a dangerous substance, such as gasoline, on their land in close proximity to a residential area engages in an abnormally dangerous activity and is subject to strict liability for any harm caused by its escape, regardless of whether negligence is proven.
Facts:
- Mr. and Mrs. Yommer operated a grocery store and gasoline filling station next to the home of Mr. and Mrs. McKenzie.
- The Yommers' property contained underground gasoline storage tanks, one of which was a 1,000-gallon tank that had been in place for approximately 20 years and was located 60-70 feet from the McKenzies' well.
- On December 17, 1967, Mr. McKenzie discovered that his well water was contaminated with gasoline.
- In January 1968, Mr. Yommer had one of his storage tanks removed and replaced.
- When the old tank was excavated, there was evidence of gasoline seepage into the ground beneath it, and the surrounding dirt smelled of gasoline.
- The McKenzies had to install a filter and water softener to use the water for cooking and bathing and were still transporting drinking water from another town at the time of the trial.
Procedural Posture:
- The McKenzies (plaintiffs) sued the Yommers (defendants) in a Maryland trial court, alleging a nuisance.
- At the close of the plaintiffs' case, the Yommers moved for a directed verdict, which the court denied.
- The Yommers renewed their motion for a directed verdict at the close of all evidence, which was also denied.
- The jury returned a verdict for the McKenzies in the amount of $3,500.
- The Yommers (appellants) appealed the judgment entered on the verdict to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, naming the McKenzies as appellees.
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 storage of gasoline in large underground tanks as part of a filling station's operation, located in close proximity to a private residence and well, constitute an abnormally dangerous activity for which the operator is strictly liable for resulting harm, even without proof of negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Singley, J.
Yes, the storage of gasoline in large underground tanks in this location is an abnormally dangerous activity for which the operator is strictly liable. The court adopts the 'abnormally dangerous activity' test from the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which considers factors including the appropriateness of the activity to its location. While operating a gasoline station is not a nuisance per se, storing large quantities of gasoline immediately adjacent to a private residence and well is a 'non-natural' use of the land that is inappropriate for the location. This inappropriateness subjects the landowner to strict liability under the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher, relieving the plaintiff of the need to prove negligence. The court found there was sufficient circumstantial evidence for a jury to conclude that the gasoline contaminating the McKenzies' well originated from the Yommers' tank.
Analysis:
This decision formally adopts the 'abnormally dangerous activity' test from the Restatement (Second) of Torts in Maryland, shifting the focus from whether an activity is inherently 'ultrahazardous' to a more context-specific inquiry. The court emphasizes that the appropriateness of an activity to its particular location is a crucial, if not dispositive, factor in the strict liability analysis. This precedent broadens the scope of strict liability beyond classic examples like blasting to include common commercial enterprises that become abnormally dangerous due to their placement in residential or otherwise sensitive areas, making it easier for plaintiffs to recover in environmental contamination cases without proving negligence.
