Yukon Equipment, Inc. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co.
Alaska Supreme Court
585 P.2d 1206 (1978)
- Written by Lauren Petersen, JD
Facts
Yukon Equipment, Inc. (Yukon) (defendant) owned an explosives storage magazine located on federal property near Anchorage, Alaska. At the time that the government had chosen the property for Yukon’s magazine, Anchorage was less populated. Now, however, the area surrounding the magazine was suburban. Vandals broke into the facility several times to steal explosives. Finally, thieves broke into the magazine and ignited 80,000 pounds of explosives, creating an explosion that damaged homes up to two miles away from the site. The Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (Fireman’s Fund) (plaintiff) sued Yukon, arguing that Yukon was strictly liable for damages caused by the explosion. Fireman’s Fund moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted partial judgment on the issue of liability. Yukon appealed, arguing that strict liability did not apply to Yukon’s storage of explosives. Specifically, Yukon argued that whether storing explosives was an abnormally dangerous activity meriting strict liability must be determined by applying the test outlined by § 520 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Additionally, Yukon argued that the thieves’ intentional detonation of the explosives served as an intervening cause that removed Yukon’s liability.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Matthews, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 780,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
