Opinion ID: 1693062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: dismissal of strict liability claim against achter

Text: ¶ 20. The plaintiffs next allege that the leakage of [the underground storage] tank and the resulting substantial environmental contamination, combined with Achter's failure to take any action to minimize the damage, remediate it, or at least report it to authorities constitutes an abnormally dangerous activity that subjects Achter to strict liability. See Brief of Pet. at 43-44. Looking to the definition of abnormally dangerous activities present in Restatement (Second) of Torts, §§ 519-20 (1977), adopted by this court in Bennett v. Larsen Co., 118 Wis. 2d 681, 703, 348 N.W.2d 540 (1984), the circuit court dismissed the plaintiffs' strict liability claims against Achter. Upon review, where the facts are undisputed, whether an activity is abnormally dangerous is to be determined by the court, upon consideration of all the factors listed in sec. 520, and the weight given to each that it merits upon the facts in evidence. Fortier v. Flambeau Plastics Co., 164 Wis. 2d 639, 668, 476 N.W.2d 593 (Ct. App. 1991). Thus, a question of law is presented which we review de novo. ¶ 21. Restatement (Second) § 520 lists six factors for determining if an activity is abnormally dangerous: (a) existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land or chattels of others; (b) likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great; (c) inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care; (d) extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage; (e) inappropriateness of the activity of the place where it is carried on; and (f) extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes. These factors are interrelated and should be considered as a whole, with weight being apportioned by the court in accordance with the facts in evidence. See Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 520 cmt.1 (1977). [3] ¶ 22. As an initial matter, we reject the plaintiffs' assertion that the leakage and resulting contamination attributable to a UST is the appropriate activity to be analyzed under the Restatement. The contamination is the resulting harm, not the alleged ultrahazardous activity itself. Thus, we instead examine whether Achter's installation and use of a UST on a farm in the 1970s, without more, constitutes an abnormally dangerous activity that requires the imposition of strict liability in the event of harm to others. We conclude based on the facts of this case that Achter's use of a UST did not constitute an abnormally dangerous activity. Cf. Fortier, 164 Wis. 2d at 675 (holding that deposit of VOC contaminated waste in landfill was not an abnormally dangerous activity); Arlington Forest Assocs. v. Exxon Corp., 774 F. Supp. 387 (E.D. Va. 1991) (holding that storage and removal of gasoline from UST does not constitute an abnormally dangerous activity under Virginia law). ¶ 23. USTs, while admittedly disfavored under today's environmental laws, are not inherently dangerous. Absent negligence or application of an outside force, use of a UST does not create a high degree of risk of harm to the person, land or chattels of another. Moreover, those risks that do exist can be minimized by the exercise of reasonable care by the owner or possessor of the tank. As one court has noted: If an activity can be performed safely with ordinary care, negligence serves both as an adequate remedy for injury and a sufficient deterrent to carelessness. Strict liability is reserved for selected uncommon and extraordinarily dangerous activities for which negligence is an inadequate deterrent or remedy. Arlington, 774 F. Supp. at 390. ¶ 24. While USTs are not as popular today as they once were, as the testimony of Daun and Achter indicates, use of USTs on farms in the 1970s was a common occurrence. Such storage tanks were commonly placed near farm buildings, and thus near wells, to facilitate ready access by farm implements. All of these factors weigh against imposition of strict liability in this case. ¶ 25. We acknowledge in hindsight that the likelihood of harm resulting from use of a UST that leaks is significant and that such harm may today in certain circumstances outweigh the utility of using USTs. However, at the time the allegedly hazardous activity took place, the value to the community of having USTs was believed to outweigh any danger from their use. Cf. Fortier, 164 Wis. 2d at 674-75. Both the general community and the DNR were operating under the mistaken impression that the introduction of petroleum products into soil presented no threat. Accordingly, because the Restatement factors are to be considered as a whole, based on the facts at hand, we reject application of strict liability in this case and affirm the circuit court's dismissal of the strict liability claim.