Siegler v. Kuhlman

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc · 1972 · Torts

TortsStrict liabilityRes ipsa loquiturAbnormally dangerous activitiesstrict liabilityabnormally dangerous activitygasoline transportpublic highways

Facts

A truck and trailer unit owned by Pacific Intermountain Express and driven by Aaron Kuhlman was carrying thousands of gallons of gasoline when the trailer disengaged, crashed through a fence, overturned on Capitol Lake Drive, and spilled a large pool of gasoline across the roadway. Shortly thereafter, Carol House drove into the area and was engulfed in flames after the gasoline ignited, killing her. The opinion states that the precise cause of the trailer's separation remained unknown despite competing theories and evidence of inspection and due care. Plaintiff sought to prove negligence and also relied on res ipsa loquitur, while defendants presented evidence aimed at showing careful inspection, maintenance, and operation.

Issue

Whether the defendants could be held liable for Carol House's death when a gasoline tanker trailer became detached, overturned, and spilled thousands of gallons of gasoline onto a public highway, even though the precise cause of the separation was unknown. More specifically, whether hauling gasoline in commercial quantities on public highways is an abnormally dangerous activity subject to strict liability, and whether plaintiff was also entitled to a res ipsa loquitur instruction.

Rule

One who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to liability for harm resulting from that activity although he has exercised the utmost care to prevent the harm, and that strict liability is limited to the kind of harm, the risk of which makes the activity abnormally dangerous. Transporting gasoline as freight in great quantities by truck on public highways is such an abnormally dangerous activity because it involves a high degree of risk, a likelihood of great harm, and dangers that cannot be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care.

🔒

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.

Larkin Fuel Logistics sent a tanker carrying 7,200 gallons of gasoline from Tacoma to Seattle on Interstate 5. Although the driver had completed inspections and obeyed all traffic laws, a hidden coupling defect caused the tank to rupture, and gasoline spread across the roadway, where it ignited and badly burned Nora Vega in a passing car.

Is Larkin Fuel Logistics most likely strictly liable to Nora?

Explanation. The majority held that one who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is liable even if utmost care was used, and specifically treated hauling gasoline in commercial quantities on public highways as abnormally dangerous. The resulting ignition and fire are exactly the sort of harm that makes bulk gasoline transport unusually dangerous, so strict liability applies despite careful inspection and compliance. (Derived from Siegler v. Kuhlman (n.d.).)