INDIANA HARBOR BELT RAIL CO. V. AMERICAN CYANAMID case brief

INDIANA HARBOR BELT RAIL CO. V. AMERICAN CYANAMID

• Judge Posner – Law and Economics

• Application of §520 analysis

• P claims the production of the chemical is the abnormally dangerous activity in and of itself

• Posner sees this as a problem – all chemical manufacturers would be liable for simple production

• Posner believes the wrong defendant is before the court – the transporter of the chemical, not the manufacturer, is the proper defendant

• Guille v. Swan – paradigmatic case for strict liability; essence of hot air ballooning is that it was difficult to control even when operator acted reasonably; the case meets all the requirements of §520;

• Posner sees “inability to eliminate the risk by exercise of reasonable care” as the most important factor in the analysis  the only reason to have strict liability is when this factor is applicable

• Essence of tort law is negligence – when it is workable, there is no need to switch to strict liability

• Posner does not see this case qualifying under §520 – rather, he says it was caused by carelessness, i.e. unreasonable conduct – therefore it is ripe for NEGLIGENCE, NOT STRICT LIABILITY. The transportation of a hazardous material, when handled carefully and reasonably, avoids the accident.

• POLICY: There is a larger social/economic issue: the railroad went through an economically depressed minority area (Chicago/St. Louis). Posner dismisses this – Chicago is a hub and has many spokes – efficiency dictates the hub will be in a densely populated area; efficiency trumps rights

• Basically, Hackney hates Posner.

Yukon, p. 517

• court rejects §520 approach – and takes an absolutist view of the enjoyment prong

• explosion of a building used to store explosives

• court insisted that the use and storage of dynamite warranted the imposition of strict liability no matter how valuable the activity might be to the community

• rejects Allen line of thought where the government argued “well we had to drop the bomb somewhere.”

Defenses: Assumption of Risk

• contributory negligence is not a defense to strict liability except when the plaintiff’s conduct involves knowingly and unreasonably subjecting himself to the risk of harm from the activity