INDIANA HARBOR BELT R.R. CO. V. AMERICAN CYANAMID CO., 916 F.2d 1174 (7th Cir. 1990) CASE BRIEF

INDIANA HARBOR BELT R.R. CO. V. AMERICAN CYANAMID CO.

916 F.2d 1174 (7th Cir. 1990)

NATURE OF THE CASE: American (D) appealed an order granting summary judgment to Indiana Harbor (P) on its claim based on strict liability. P cross-appealed, challenging the dismissal of a negligence count.

FACTS: American Cyanamid Co. (D) loaded 20,000 gallons of liquid acrylonitrile, a toxic substance, into a leased railroad car in order to ship it to a processing plant in New Jersey. The car arrived in the Blue Island yard and several hours after it arrived, employees of the switching line noticed fluid gushing from the bottom outlet of the car. The lid on the outlet was broken. The leak was stopped after two hours by closing a shut-off valve controlled from the top of the car. It was feared that all 20,000 gallons had leaked. Acrylonitrile is flammable at a temperature at or above 30 degrees Fahrenheit. It is highly toxic, and possibly carcinogenic. Homes near the yard were evacuated. The evacuation lasted a few hours. The car was moved to a remote part of the yard and it was discovered that only about a quarter of the acrylonitrile had leaked. The Illinois Department of Environmental Protection ordered the switching line to take decontamination measures that cost the line $981,022.75. P sued D to recover the cost of cleanup. P claimed negligence and that the transportation of toxic chemicals was an ultrahazardous activity and D should be strictly liable. P moved for summary judgment on the strict liability count and won. The judge directed the entry of judgment for $981,022.75 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) to permit Cyanamid to take an immediate appeal even though the negligence count remained pending. D appealed and the appeals court remanded on the ground that the negligence and strict liability counts were not separate claims but merely separate theories involving the same facts, making Rule 54(b) inapplicable. The district judge, over the switching line's objection, dismissed the negligence claim with prejudice. D then appealed and P cross-appealed, challenging the dismissal of the negligence count.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner