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
No comments:
Post a Comment