Issue: Under Washington law, does ownership and operation of a storage facility which necessitates a controlled atmosphere of one to two percent oxygen constitute an ultrahazardous activity for which the owner is strictly liable?
| Area of Law: | Personal Injury & Negligence |
| Keywords: | Strict liability; Owner or operator of storage facility; Abnormally dangerous |
| Jurisdiction: | Washington |
| Cited Cases: | 502 P.2d 1181; 109 Wash. 2d 581; 368 S.E.2d 268; 718 F. Supp. 413; 88 Wash. 2d 855; 279 Cal. Rptr. 231; 788 P.2d 726; 746 P.2d 1198; 228 Cal. Rptr. 108; 549 N.Y.S.2d 133; 687 P.2d 212; 765 P.2d 814; 810 P.2d 917; 509 N.E.2d 850 |
| Cited Statutes: | Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520(f) |
| Date: | 04/01/2001 |
Like numerous other jurisdictions, Washington has adopted the six-factor analysis under § 520 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts in determining whether an activity is abnormally dangerous. See Klein v. Pyrodyne Corp., 117 Wash. 2d 1, 810 P.2d 917, 920, amended, 817 P.2d 1359 (1991); New Meadows Holding Co. v. Washington Water Power Co., 102 Wash. 2d 495, 687 P.2d 212, 215-216 (1984). Whether an activity is abnormally dangerous for purposes of imposing strict liability is a question of law for the court to decide. Langan v. Valicopters, 88 Wash. 2d 855, 861, 567 P.2d 218, 224 (1977).
Section 520 lists the following factors to consider when determining what constitutes an abnormally dangerous activity:
(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;
#brad_icons_1 li a{color:#999999;}