Court Opinion

ID: 9861894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 00:53:34.359046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:29:38.567216
License: Public Domain

ALLBEE, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent because I believe that the court should adopt as our own rule the common carrier exception to the strict liability rules for abnormally dangerous activities embraced by the American Law Institute in the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977), to wit:
§ 521. Abnormally Dangerous Activity Carried on in Pursuance of a Public Duty
The rules as to strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities do not apply if the activity is carried on in pursuance of a public duty imposed upon the actor as a public officer or employee or as a common carrier.
This exception is explained by Comment a to section 521, which states in pertinent part:
[A] common carrier, in so far as it is required to carry such explosives as are offered to it for carriage, is not liable for harm done by their explosion, unless it has failed to take that care in their carriage which their dangerous character requires.
The considered view of the American Law Institute seems to me to be more authoritative and to carry much greater weight than the reasoning of the single district judge in Chavez v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 413 F.Supp. 1203 (E.D. Cal.1976), the decision this court builds upon to reach its ultimate rationale.
SCHULTZ, J., joins this dissent.