Court Opinion

ID: 9615637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:39:09.120514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:56.353348
License: Public Domain

Rosellini, J.
(dissenting) — The majority today departs from the analysis of strict liability contained in Siegler v. Kuhlman, 81 Wn.2d 448, 502 P.2d 1181 (1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 983 (1973). In so doing, the majority forecloses recovery to a seriously injured individual who— indisputably — bears no responsibility for the accident. With this result I cannot agree.
As pointed out by the majority, the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 (1977) sets out six factors to be considered. Section 520 states:
In determining whether an activity is abnormally dangerous, the following factors are to be considered:
(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 to the place where it is carried on; and
(f) extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes.
Comment f to section 520 states that all six factors should be considered; while it is not necessary that all elements be present, ordinarily several are required for strict liability.
*505Here, the majority opinion acknowledges that the first two elements are present; natural gas creates a high degree of risk, and there is a likelihood of great harm should gas escape from gas lines. The majority holds, however, that the final four elements of section 520 are missing, and therefore strict liability should not be applied. The majority's analysis misapplies the Restatement section by ignoring the similarity between transportation of gasoline on the highway and the transport of natural gas, and rejects sound policy reasons for applying strict liability to the facts of this case.
To begin with, the majority misapplies section 520 of the Restatement by concluding that factor (c), the inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care, does not apply to the transport of natural gas. I believe it does.
The transmission of natural gas is analogous to the transportation of gasoline. Natural gas, like gasoline, remains relatively safe if contained in its proper place, i.e., gas lines, storage tanks or even automobiles. Once natural gas or gasoline escapes, however, the exercise of ordinary or even extraordinary care frequently is incapable of averting an explosion. See Siegler v. Kuhlman, supra. In Siegler, we found this factor weighed heavily in favor of imposing strict liability. In the same way, the hazards associated with escaped natural gas demand imposition of strict liability.
The majority ignores this similarity by observing that the transport of natural gas involves no negligent drivers, slippery roads or faulty brakes. This distinction neglects the risks that may occur, such as negligent excavators, faulty digging equipment or vandals who may remove or damage warning signs.
Moreover, unlike the majority here, the court in Siegler did not feel compelled to slavishly total the number of factors in favor of imposition against those that did not. Instead, the court recognized the extreme hazard involved with the handling of this product and concluded sound policy dictated imposition of strict liability. In the same way, sound policy considerations dictate imposition of strict *506liability here.
First, principles of risk allocation support the premise that between two innocent parties, the one benefiting from an activity should bear the risk of loss. Having received a benefit, that party is then in a position to spread the risk of loss to consumers of the products.
Furthermore, where the abnormally dangerous activity involves high risk of explosions, the one engaged in that activity has a better opportunity to determine the cause of the incident and can therefore seek indemnification. The injured plaintiff can prove negligence as to a third party only with great difficulty.
Finally, the imposition of strict liability here will spur the natural gas companies to greater safety precautions, such as periodic inspections and supervision of excavating activities within the vicinity of their lines.
For these reasons and those discussed above, I believe strict liability should be imposed. I therefore dissent.
Williams, C.J., and Dore, J., concur with Rosellini, J.