McLane v. Northwest Natural Gas

41 Citing cases

  1. Koos v. Roth

    293 Or. 670 (Or. 1982)   Cited 19 times
    In Koos, the court provided additional criteria for determining when an activity is "ultrahazardous" for purposes of strict liability: "[T]he abnormally dangerous nature of an activity need not be proved by evidence if this danger is recognized by stringent legislative or administrative safety regulations, although it may be an issue what degree of danger a regulation recognizes.

    The blasting in those cases was intentional, but the mere storage of highly explosive gas vapors in a populated area sufficed to impose strict liability for wrongful death from a nonnegligent explosion. McLane v. Northwest Natural Gas, 255 Or. 324, 467 P.2d 635 (1970). In 1961, Loe v. Lenhardt, supra, found an "extra hazardous" activity in aerial cropdusting with a chemical defoliant which damaged a neighbor's crops, a decision followed in Bella v. Aurora Air, Inc., 279 Or. 13, 566 P.2d 489 (1977).

  2. Gonzalez v. O & G Indus.

    341 Conn. 644 (Conn. 2021)   Cited 5 times

    ..." 3 Restatement (Second), supra, ยง 520, comment (g), p. 38. Similarly, the plaintiffs point to McLane v. Northwest Natural Gas Co ., 255 Or. 324, 327โ€“28, 467 P.2d 635 (1970), for the proposition that the inherent volatility of natural gas renders its use abnormally dangerous. In that case, natural gas escaped from a storage unit on the defendant's property, causing an explosion that killed the decedent.

  3. Koos v. Roth

    55 Or. App. 12 (Or. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 3 times

    The test the courts are to apply in determining whether an activity is ultrahazardous has been variously defined. In McLane v. Northwest Natural Gas, 255 Or. 324, 467 P.2d 635 (1970), the court stated: The court explained that "to leave the question to the jury would result in a 'wilderness of single instances.' "

  4. Ellis v. Ferrellgas

    211 Or. App. 648 (Or. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 14 times

    Defendants moved for summary judgment, and plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the strict liability claim. The trial court granted plaintiffs motion on the ground that, based on McLane v. Northwest Natural Gas Co., 255 Or 324, 467 P2d 635 (1970), defendants' activity in furnishing the propane constituted an abnormally dangerous activity as a matter of law, resulting in strict liability. The case went to trial on the issue of damages, and plaintiff filed a motion in limine to strike defendants' comparative fault defense, which the trial court granted.

  5. Apodaca v. AAA Gas Co.

    134 N.M. 77 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 85 times
    Holding that res judicata barred a second claim where it could have been brought in the first case where both claims were brought based on the same transaction and all of the events underlying both suits happened before either suit was filed

    It is a "social policy [that] requires the defendant to make good the harm which results to others from abnormal risks which are inherent in activities that are not considered blameworthy because they are reasonably incident to desirable industrial activity." McLane v. Northwest Natural Gas Co., 255 Or. 324, 467 P.2d 635, 637 (1970). "The basis of the liability is the intentional behavior [that exposes] the community to the abnormal risk [s]." Id.

  6. Tri-County Metropolitan v. Time Warner Telecom of Oregon

    CV 07-691 PK (D. Or. Oct. 14, 2008)

    "Whether an activity is abnormally dangerous is a question for the court." McLane v. Northwest Natural Gas Co., 255 Or. 324, 327, 467 P.2d 635 (1970). In Oregon, an activity is abnormally dangerous only where it is "extraordinary, exceptional, or unusual, considering the locality in which it is carried on; when there is a risk of grave harm from such abnormality; and when the risk cannot be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care."

  7. City of Portland v. the Boeing Company

    Civil No. 99-1761-AS (D. Or. Mar. 7, 2001)   Cited 8 times
    Finding that where hazardous substances migrated from defendant and other sources to plaintiffs property, plaintiff is not liable under ยง 9607; stating, "The fact that Plaintiff owns property contaminated by other sources does not make it a liable party"

    Whether an activity is abnormally dangerous is a question of law for the court. McLane v. Northwest Natural Gas Co., 255 Or. 324, 327 (1970). An activity is abnormally dangerous in Oregon:

  8. Cavan v. General Motors

    280 Or. 455 (Or. 1977)   Cited 10 times
    In Cavan v. General Motors, 280 Or. 455, 571 P.2d 1249 (1977), the court rejected the argument that the provision by a manufacturer of a part, post-sale, was sufficient to show a continuing relationship as envisioned in Josephs.

    The Restatement (Second) of Torts classifies such activities as abnormally dangerous, and it lists several factors to be used in making the determination of abnormal dangerousness. Restatement (Second) of Torts ยง 520. Our cases have adopted the approach of the Restatement (Second). See, e.g., McLane v. Northwest Natural Gas, 255 Or. 324, 467 P.2d 635 (1970); Nicolai v. Day, 264 Or. 354, 506 P.2d 483 (1973). Contrary to the assertion of plaintiff in this case, the issue of abnormal dangerousness vel non is a question of law for the court.

  9. Bella v. Aurora Air, Inc.

    279 Or. 13 (Or. 1977)   Cited 30 times
    In Bella v. Aurora Air, Inc., 279 Or. 13, 566 P.2d 489 (1977), when defendant was served with summons and complaint, he forwarded them to his liability insurance broker in California, who in turn forwarded them to the insurance carrier in Tennessee.

    This court has stated that whether an activity is "ultrahazardous," or to use the later term, "abnormally dangerous," so as to impose liability without negligence, is to be determined not in the abstract but in the locality and circumstances where it is done; and it is to be determined by the court. Loe v. Lenhardt, supra, 227 Or at 251; McLane v. Northwest Natural Gas Co., 255 Or. 324, 328, 467 P.2d 635 (1970); Nicolai v. Day, 264 Or. 354, 358, 506 P.2d 483 (1973). The terms "hazard," "risk," or "danger" are themselves some hazard to clarity, since they combine in a single conclusion the two distinct variables of the probability of the threatened harm, a judgment about facts, and its gravity, which is a value judgment.

  10. Hudson v. Peavey Oil Company

    279 Or. 3 (Or. 1977)   Cited 28 times
    In Hudson v. Peavey Oil Company, 279 Or. 3, 566 P.2d 175 (1977), the plaintiffs brought an action in trespass against the defendant service station owner claiming damages to their adjoining property resulting from the seepage of gasoline from the defendants' underground storage tanks.

    Whether an activity is extrahazardous under the particular circumstances is a question of law for the court. Loe v. Lenhardt, supra at 249; McLane v. Northwest Natural Gas, 255 Or. 324, 327, 467 P.2d 635 (1970). In McLane we discussed in some detail the concept of strict liability for damages arising out of an extrahazardous, or abnormally dangerous, activity.