D supplied gas to P. D dropped off a drum of gas that would be used by P in his farm machinery.
P attempted to remove the cap from the drum and caused a spark which created a fire that severely burned P.
P claimed that the drum was in a state of disrepair which caused the fire and that D was negligent in not fixing it.
Procedural History:
Trial court found for P.
MS Supreme Court affirmed, found for P.
Issues:
May an individual be liable in negligence even if the conduct only creates a risk of highly improbable and unlikely harm?
Holding/Rule:
An individual be liable in negligence even if the conduct only creates a risk of highly improbable and unlikely harm.
Reasoning:
The explosion in question is a very unlikely circumstance.
When dealing with forseeability, the inquiry is not as to the probability of the incident but on whether the incident is likely to occur.
The test for forseeability then is not the balance of probabilities but the existence of some real likelihood of some damage.
Here, the likelihood is of such weight as to induce action to avoid the damage on the part of a reasonable person.
There would have been no liability if the drum was in reasonably good repair. However, this drum was not in good repair. The threads of the cap were broken.
A reasonable person could have foreseen the fire and should have taken steps to minimize the risk.
Dissent:
None.
Notes:
Negligence deals with possibilities, not probabilities.
The act of the D must be likely to cause injury.
It is not necessary that the probability of an injury is very likely
