Court Opinion

ID: 9732065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:06:31.145949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:22.877695
License: Public Domain

WIENER, Acting P. J., Concurring.
I would approach this case in a more direct fashion and affirm the judgment on the basis of established precedent.1
The predicate to the majority’s holding that sulfuric acid is not ultrahazardous is its conclusion that “there is no case directly addressing sulfuric acid use in terms of its nature as an ultrahazardous activity.” (Maj. opn., ante, p. 984, fn. omitted.) On this basis the majority says it must “resort to the guidelines set forth in the Restatement.” (Maj. opn., ante, pp. 984-985.) To explain its conclusion the majority opinion directs us to a footnote (maj. opn., ante, p. 984, fn. 3) in which it cites three cases involving personal injury caused by sulfuric acid, Gall v. Union Ice Company (1951) 108 Cal.App.2d 303, 311-312 [239 P.2d 48], Means v. Southern California Ry. Co. (1904) 144 Cal. 473 [77 P. 1001] and Blackwell v. Phelps Dodge Corp. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 372 [203 Cal.Rptr. 706], describing each as not being “directly in point.” (Maj. opn., ante, p. 984, fn. 3.) Although the *988majority correctly labels Gall v. Union Ice Company, supra, I believe the remaining two cases are sufficiently “in point” to govern our decision.2
The California Supreme Court in Means v. Southern California Ry. Co., supra, 144 Cal. 473, examined the question whether a different rule of liability other than negligence should be applied to sulfuric acid because it “was of such a dangerous character that the defendant was under legal obligation to the public generally” not to place it in certain locations. (144 Cal. at p. 481.) Means answered this question by stating that on the basis of the evidence presented there was nothing to show that sulfuric acid was “essentially and inherently a dangerous agency, or that from its nature any particular peril is attendant upon handling it in iron tanks,” to cause injury to property or person. (Ibid.) The court further explained that its discussion of the facts was for the express purpose of pointing out that “sulfuric acid consigned and handled in tanks, is not inherently such a dangerous substance as to have required defendant to take extra precautions, or exercise more than ordinary care in disposing of it in its freight-house, or which calls for the application of the rule contended for by plaintiff enlarging the liability of defendant.” (At p. 482, italics supplied.)
Like Means the factual record here also fails to show that sulfuric acid is inherently a dangerous agency. Pursuant to Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 [20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937], we must affirm.
Blackwell v. Phelps Dodge Corp., supra, 157 Cal.App.3d 372, affirmed a summary judgment in favor of a chemical company which had loaded sulfuric acid into a tank car holding the defendant had no duty to place a warning on the tank. The court explained the product alleged to have been dangerous, and hence defective, for lack of warning and instructions was not the acid supplied by defendant, but the tank car in which the acid was shipped. (At p. 378.) In rejecting plaintiff’s arguments pertaining to the sulfuric acid Blackwell emphasized that “[pjlaintiffs sustained personal injuries in attempting to unload acid from the tank car after it had reached its destination, not while it was in the process of transportation.” (At p. 380.) This latter point, strikingly similar to the issue presented here, is an independent basis on which we should affirm the judgment.
This case does not require us to decide whether the transportation and delivery of sulfuric acid is an ultrahazardous activity. As in Blackwell, Post *989was not engaging in that activity at the time the injury occurred. The transportation and delivery was complete and Edwards’s injury was a function of the storage of sulfuric acid for which only Norris is responsible. A defendant’s strict liability for injuries caused by ultrahazardous activity is necessarily “confined to consequences which lie within the extraordinary risk posed by the abnormally dangerous activity . . . .” (Goodwin v. Reilley (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 86, 92 [221 Cal.Rptr. 374].) Here, where the acid was safely delivered to the location specified by the customer, the delivery had ceased. The risk of an improperly designed or maintained storage tank is not one of the risks which makes the transportation and delivery of sulfuric acid dangerous.
Based on the foregoing I would affirm.
A petition for a rehearing was denied April 11, 1991, and appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied June 19, 1991. Mosk, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

This approach, however, precludes application of California Rules of Court, rule 977(b). In the interest of brevity I do not discuss this aspect of the case nor do I dwell on the majority’s questionable assumption that California has adopted the more restrictive Restatement of Torts Second view of abnormally dangerous activities (see Ahrens v. Superior Court (1988) 197 Cal. App.3d 1134, 1142, fn. 6 [243 Cal.Rptr. 420]); its failure to consider whether strict liability should apply where the defendant’s exercise of reasonable care cannot eliminate the risks created by the negligence of third persons (see Rest.2d Torts, § 522; Siegler v. Kuhlman (1972) 81 Wn.2d 448 [502 P.2d 1181, 1187]); and the analytical void underlying its selection of the single Restatement factor (c) as dispositive when it has also said no one factor alone is sufficient to categorize an activity (maj. opn., ante, at p. 985).

 Interestingly, even after a rather extensive electronic search, I have been unable to find any case in the United States holding the use of sulfuric acid involves ultrahazardous activity. In this context one can only ponder why the majority incorrectly suggests that in spite of community standards and common knowledge to the contrary, a trial court may find any product is not ultrahazardous if it accepts the testimony of the defendant’s expert witness. (See maj. opn., ante, p. 984, fn. 2.)