Kind v. City of Seattle , 50 Wash. 2d 485 ( 1957 )

Finley, J.

(concurring in the result) — The majority mention the doctrine of-the English case of Rylands v. Fletcher, L. R. 1 Exch. 265, and the doctriné of.res ipsa loquitur. It is pointed out that the basic tenet of Rylands, liability without fault, has been enunciated in this state under certain circumstances; i.e., in cases involving blasting operations. Foster v. Preston Mill Co., 44 Wn. (2d) 440, 268 P. (2d) 645. However, without clearly relying upon the Rylands doctrine, the majority affirm the trial court on the basis of an application of-the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.

I believe the instant case is so closely analogous’ to Ry-lands as to call for a clear-cut application or rejection of the principle as annunciated therein by the English court.

■ I would apply the principle of Rylands in the instant case. The latter is not distinguishable simply on the factual ground that the defendant is a municipal corporation engaged in -a proprietary activity. On. this basis, I concur .in the result.