Mahoney v. Carus Chemical Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 May 1986 |
| Citation | 510 A.2d 4,102 N.J. 564 |
| Parties | , 62 A.L.R.4th 703, 54 USLW 2615 Thomas P. MAHONEY, and Barbara Mahoney, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CARUS CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., and Carus Corporation-Carus Chemical Co. Division; Hungerford & Terry, Inc.; and Inversand Company, jointly, severally and in the alternative, Defendants- Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
William J. Cook, Camden, for plaintiffs-appellants (Brown, Connery, Kulp, Wille, Purnell & Greene, Camden, attorneys).
F. Herbert Owens, III, Westmont, for defendants-respondents Carus Chemical Co., Inc. and Carus Corporation-Carus Chemical Co. Div. (Montano, Summers, Mullen, Manuel & Owens, Westmont, attorneys).
John P. Morris, Bridgeton, for defendants-respondents Hungerford & Terry, Inc. and Inversand Co. (Horuvitz, Perlow, Morris & Baker, Bridgeton, attorneys; Michael A. Pirolli, Bridgeton, on brief).
Barry T. Parker, Marlton, for amicus curiae New Jersey State Firemen's Ass'n (Parker, McCay & Criscuolo, Marlton, attorneys).
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
In this appeal we consider whether the immunity afforded by the fireman's rule insulates from liability a defendant whose willful and wanton misconduct is the proximate cause of the fire that compelled the fireman's presence at the fire scene and caused him to sustain injury. A related issue concerns the application of the fireman's rule to the manufacturer of a defective product that is alleged to have caused the fire in which the firefighter was injured.
Plaintiff Thomas P. Mahoney was a volunteer firefighter with the Highland Chemical Engine Company of Pitman, New Jersey. On June 19, 1978, duty called him to the scene of a fire at the Inversand Company chemical plant in Sewell, New Jersey. Based on his prior knowledge of the Inversand business, he knew the fire to be chemical in nature. He concedes that he understood the severe risk of entering a building engulfed by a chemical fire, including the risk of the structure falling. While straddling the threshold of the burning building, a structural wall collapsed on him, trapping him inside the building and causing his injuries. He sued Inversand, Inversand's parent, Hungerford & Terry, Inc., and Carus Chemical Company, Inc. (Carus), the Illinois corporation that supplied Inversand with the highly-combustible substance that allegedly caused the fire. 1 Plaintiff was prepared to prove at trial that as a result of the accident at the fire-fighting scene, he was critically injured, suffering massive burns on his body, crushing injuries to his right-upper extremities, fractures of the right arm and pelvis, and multiple abrasions and contusions. The trial court, relying on the "fireman's rule," Krauth v. Geller, 31 N.J. 270, 157 A.2d 129 (1960), granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants. The Appellate Division affirmed. We granted plaintiff's petition for certification. 96 N.J. 314 (1984).
Our principal focus is on his claim against Carus. The gravamen of that claim, as disclosed by the complaint and documents obtained during discovery, is that the fire at the Inversand warehouse spontaneously ignited in one of a shipment of fiber-paper drums containing potassium permanganate powder (brand name "Cairox") manufactured by Carus and received by Inversand approximately two hours before the fire; that Carus, based on a series of similar fires, knew that shipment or storage of Cairox in fiber-paper drums created a significant danger of spontaneous ignition; that the risk of spontaneous ignition of Cairox in fiber-paper drums was so substantial that Carus, in internal memoranda and in a communication to customers a month before the Inversand fire, had announced its decision to replace the fiber-paper drums with metal containers; that the shipment to Inversand included 86 metal drums of Cairox, none of which burned, and 100 fiber-paper drums, virtually all of which burned; and that Carus had continued to ship Cairox in fiber-paper drums in order to exhaust its supply of such drums before making the switch to metal containers.
Documents submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendants' summary judgment motions set forth a detailed factual background in support of the allegations in the complaint. According to plaintiff, Carus is the sole United States manufacturer of potassium permanganate, a chemical used both as an oxidizing agent and as a disinfectant. Plaintiff contends that potassium permanganate is a dangerous compound because it readily causes fire when placed in contact with combustible materials. Plaintiff's documents included excerpts from scientific manuals that plainly identified the fire hazard inherent in potassium permanganate, describing it as a "[p]owerful oxidizing material [that] [r]eacts violently with finely divided easily oxidizable substances [and] [i]ncreases flammability of combustible materials."
Potassium permanganate's hazardous properties were confirmed by plaintiff's consulting engineer in a report that was part of the trial court record:
Potassium permanganate belongs to a class of chemical compounds known as inorganic oxidizers. These oxygen-rich compounds accelerate the burning of combustible materials. KNnO sub4 [potassium permanganate] is one of the compounds used to promote and accelerate the burning of solid propellants. KMnO sub4 invariably intensifies the burning of combustible materials by acting as a "chemical supercharger". The speed of its reactivity is exponential with rising temperatures.
In NFPA's Fire Protection Guide on Hazardous Materials (3rd ed.), it is recognized that KMnO sub4 reacts violently when mixed or combined with combustible materials.
According to plaintiff, Carus did not ship potassium permanganate in fiber-paper drums until December, 1975. Carus allegedly considered using fiber drums in 1965, but rejected the idea because it recognized that "[t]here is a greater potential fire hazard when fiber is used in place of metal as a container." It is uncontroverted, however, that in late 1975 Carus began using fiber-paper drums to ship potassium permanganate. Plaintiff alleges that this was an economic decision predicated on Carus's estimate that it could save $35,000 annually by using the less expensive, fiber-paper drums. Plaintiff also alleges that Carus recognized the increased hazard to its own premises when it acknowledged that "[i]t is most likely that we would have to install a sprinkler system in the Cairox warehouse if we switch to fibre containers." It is also uncontroverted that the bottom and sides of the fiber drums used for shipping potassium permanganate were "combustible," and in its answers to interrogatories, Carus conceded that potassium permanganate "increases [the] flammability of combustible materials" and "should be kept away from [certain] combustible materials."
An internal Carus memorandum entitled "Reported Fires Involving Cairox in Fibre Drums" was also part of the trial court record. This document revealed that beginning in February, 1976, two months after Carus initiated the shipment of potassium permanganate in fiber drums, a series of spontaneous, unexplained fires occurred at various Cairox storage locations causing partial or total destruction of the fiber drums as well as considerable damage to surrounding property. Pertinent portions of this document reveal the following information:
REPORTED FIRES
INVOLVING CAIROX (R) IN FIBRE DRUMS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific Place
Geographic the Fire Probable Cause
Date Location Occurred of Ignition Damage
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25/26 Feb.'76 50 miles trailer with 30 spontaneous total loss of
north of drums KMnO reaction trailer and
Sault Ste. sub4 between KmnO cargo, and
Marie, (3,000kg) sub4 and other damage
Canada isopropyl
ethyl thiono
carbamate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
physical damage
to fibre drum
(apparently)
was
involved also
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 May '76 Huntington, railroad no clues partial loss of
freight
B.C. car with cargo, damage
18,933-lb. to car
KMnO sub4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Feb. '78 Booneville, railroad damaged total loss of
freight
AR car with 450 containers? freight cars
fibre drums friction? with cargo
KMnO sub4
(60,220
lb.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31 Mar. '78 Doraville, trailer 220 no clues total loss of
GA 50-kg
(Ashland) drums trailer and
cargo
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosa v. Dunkin' Donuts of Passaic
...or unlawful incident resulting from negligent conduct. [Id. at 88-89, 459 A.2d 663]. In a more recent case, Mahoney v. Carus Chemical Co., 102 N.J. 564, 510 A.2d 4 (1986), we held that "the immunity of the fireman's rule does not extend to one whose willful and wanton misconduct created the......
-
McWilliams v. Yamaha Motor Corp. USA, Civ. A. No. 89-2331 (AJL).
...liability is to "eliminate the necessity for proving negligence when injury is caused by a defective product." Mahoney v. Carus Chem. Co., 102 N.J. 564, 581 (1986). Strict products liability imposes a duty upon a manufacturer to "make sure that its manufactured products placed into the stre......
-
Fielder v. Stonack
...A.2d 284 (citations omitted).] Although willful misconduct need not involve the actual intent to cause harm, Mahoney v. Carus Chemical Co., 102 N.J. 564, 574, 510 A.2d 4 (1986), there must be some knowledge that the act is [I]n order to satisfy the requirement of willfulness or wantonness t......
-
Sisler v. Gannett Co., Inc.
...even though encompassing simple carelessness, while penalizing actions involving more egregious misconduct. E.g., Mahoney v. Carus, 102 N.J. 564, 510 A.2d 4 (1986) ("fireman's rule" does not bar suit for willful and wanton misconduct); Foldi v. Jeffries, 93 N.J. 533, 461 A.2d 1145 (1983) (p......