Understanding the Connection Between the "Doctrine of Strict Liability" and the Johnstown Flood

“Strict Liability” or SL is a legal doctrine under which an individual or entity is responsible for all damages caused by an act or omission, without regard to negligence, intent, or any other form of fault.  Under the doctrine of SL, responsibility is based upon committing the act, nothing more, nothing less. Responsibility attaches directly to the action - no questions asked! 

Given the harsh form of judgment - if you did it, you are responsible for all resulting damages - SL is typically limited to inherently dangerous acts and omissions. Generally, inherently dangerous activities include acts and omissions that could bring about great harm to others,  under situations where they have no reasonable ability to avoid the risk.  Examples include the handling of explosives, exposure to dangerous/vicious animals, failing to properly label drugs, and directing a firearm at a crowd of people.  As a matter of common sense, a reasonable person should know that the action could produce grievous harm to others if something went wrong.  

SL is another example of common law adopted by United States courts from England to provide relief for victims injured by the recklessness of others. The SL doctrine arose in England in 1846 as a means to hold factory owners responsible for exposing workers to inherently dangerous working conditions.  The doctrine then spread to the United States in reaction to the Johnstown flood occurring on May 31, 1889.  

The Johnstown flood resulted in 2,200+ deaths and $17M in damages ($600M in todays dollars), with thousands left homeless.  All told, 99 entire families drowned in the flood, including 396 children. Bodies continued to be recovered as late as 1911 (22 years after the flood) and one third (777) of the remains could never be identified.  Aside from Galveston Hurricane of 1900 and 9/11,  the Johnstown flood was the deadliest non-war time event in the history of the United States.  

The Johnstown flood resulted from the catastrophic failure of an earthen dam retaining a manmade lake holding millions of gallons of water.  The manmade lake was created by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, or Penn. RR, to support the construction of a rail line in the valley below.  In 1879., the dam and manmade lake were purchased by the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club, or F&H Club.  The F&H Club was a private sporting club for titans of the industrial revolution in the United States. Members included more than 50 millionaires, including Andrew Carnegie, Andrew Mellon, Henry Frick, as well as multiple politicians and CEO's of major corporations. 

At the time of the catastrophe, it was suspected the failure of the dam was due to a combination of factors.  Most importantly, overflow/bypass piping intended to relieve excess water pressure behind the dam had been removed for reasons unknown.  Around that same time, three feet of earth was shaved off the top of the dam to create a road across the dam.  Modern investigations and computer modeling confirm the failure resulted from these modifications.  Finally, earlier breaches of the dam had been repaired by simply dumping uncompacted fill and debris into the breach.  Some claimed the catastrophe was a ticking “time bomb” waiting to happen.

Multiple lawsuits were filed against the F&H Club and the Penn RR, alleging negligence with respect to the construction and maintenance of the dam. Defendants repeatedly claimed the catastrophe was caused by an extreme rain event (i.e. "Act of God") and blamed each other for the modifications to the dam. In the end, the F&H Club was absolved of all liability and the Penn RR found liable for minimal damages in just several cases.  Given the severity of the catastrophe, there was enormous public outrage against the F&H Club and Penn RR, who were viewed as uncaring wealthy industrialists.  Many were also outraged at the judicial system, including judges to whom the industrialists offered major contributions as well as jury members who were employed by the members of the F&H Club.

While the industrialists won the battle, many claim they lost the war.  As a result of national public outrage, many states adopted the SL Doctrine as a means of holding industry responsible for inherently dangerous activities.  Many states have since adopted the SL Doctrine, and have expanded its application to a variety of inherently dangerous activities.  Nowadays, SL has expanded to handling toxic chemicals, storing hazardous substances, operating industrial equipment, and failing to maintain dams.  Of course, SL is still subject to sovereign immunity and the ability to bring suit against the government and other quasi-public entities.  [See, When Can the Government be Sued - Under the "Sovereign Immunity Doctrine"?, posted 4/24/24; “Why State and Local Governments do Business as Authorities”?, posted 12/6/23 ].  A common thread between activities deemed “inherently dangerous”, appears to be 1.) the activity is uncommon, and 2.) the activity creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of severe physical harm or death.  In modern society, the application of SL continues to grow and expand.