Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1990 · Torts

Tortsstrict liabilityabnormally dangerous activitiesultrahazardous activitiesRestatement § 520abnormally dangerous activitystrict liabilitynegligence adequacy

Facts

American Cyanamid loaded 20,000 gallons of liquid acrylonitrile into a leased railroad tank car in Louisiana for shipment by rail to New Jersey. While the car was in Indiana Harbor Belt's Blue Island yard near Chicago, acrylonitrile leaked from the bottom outlet because the outlet lid was broken, and about one-quarter of the contents escaped before the leak was stopped. Because acrylonitrile is flammable and toxic, nearby homes were temporarily evacuated, and Illinois ordered decontamination measures costing Indiana Harbor Belt $981,022.75. Indiana Harbor Belt sued Cyanamid for negligence and also claimed that shipping acrylonitrile by rail through the Chicago metropolitan area was an abnormally dangerous activity subjecting Cyanamid to strict liability.

Issue

Whether, under Illinois law as informed by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520, a shipper of acrylonitrile is strictly liable for cleanup costs caused by a rail spill occurring while the chemical is transported through a densely populated metropolitan area. More specifically, the question was whether bulk rail transportation of acrylonitrile through Chicago is an abnormally dangerous activity.

Rule

An activity is abnormally dangerous only when, considering the § 520 factors, negligence is not an adequate liability regime because the risk of serious accident remains significant even when due care is exercised, and strict liability would usefully encourage relocation, reduction, or other alteration of the activity. Abnormal dangerousness is a property of the activity, not the substance alone, and the relevant activity here is transportation of acrylonitrile by rail through populated areas. Where the spill appears preventable by ordinary care and the plaintiff does not show that strict liability would effectively reduce accident costs, strict liability is inappropriate.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Prairie Solvents LLC shipped a tank car of toxic solvent from Baton Rouge to Newark. While the car sat in a switching yard in Gary, Indiana, workers discovered a leak from a cracked outlet fitting that had gone unrepaired despite routine inspection requirements.

If the yard owner sues Prairie Solvents under a strict-liability theory for conducting an abnormally dangerous activity, which is the strongest argument against strict liability?

Explanation. The lead opinion emphasizes that the key inquiry is whether reasonable care can eliminate the relevant risk. If the spill appears caused by careless maintenance, inspection, or handling, negligence is the proper regime because the accident is preventable through due care. The case rejects any automatic rule based on rail transport, rejects focusing on the substance alone, and does not require personal injury.