Connection lost
Server error
Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company, Cross-Appellant v. American Cyanamid Company, Cross-Appellee Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A railroad sued a chemical manufacturer under a strict liability theory after a hazardous chemical leaked from a tank car. The court rejected strict liability, holding that shipping the chemical was not an abnormally dangerous activity because the accident was preventable through due care.
Legal Significance: This case refines the “abnormally dangerous activity” analysis, holding that strict liability is inappropriate when the risk of harm can be eliminated by exercising due care. The focus is on the activity’s intrinsic danger, not the hazardous nature of the substance being transported.
Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company, Cross-Appellant v. American Cyanamid Company, Cross-Appellee Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
American Cyanamid Company (Cyanamid), a chemical manufacturer, loaded 20,000 gallons of liquid acrylonitrile, a flammable and toxic chemical, into a leased railroad tank car. The car was transported by rail and eventually reached a switching yard near Chicago operated by Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad (IHB). At the yard, IHB employees discovered that the lid on the car’s bottom outlet was broken, causing a significant leak. Approximately 5,000 gallons of acrylonitrile spilled before the leak was stopped. Fearing contamination, the Illinois Department of Environmental Protection ordered IHB to undertake extensive decontamination measures, which cost IHB nearly $1 million. IHB sued Cyanamid to recover these costs, alleging both negligence and strict liability for engaging in an abnormally dangerous activity. The district court granted summary judgment to IHB on the strict liability claim. Cyanamid appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is the shipment of a hazardous chemical by rail through a metropolitan area an abnormally dangerous activity that subjects the shipper to strict liability for harm caused by a leak?
No. The transportation of acrylonitrile by rail is not an abnormally dangerous Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute i
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Is the shipment of a hazardous chemical by rail through a metropolitan area an abnormally dangerous activity that subjects the shipper to strict liability for harm caused by a leak?
Conclusion
The decision significantly limits the scope of strict liability for abnormally dangerous Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
Legal Rule
An activity is deemed abnormally dangerous, warranting strict liability, based on a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in rep
Legal Analysis
Writing for the court, Judge Posner conducted a law and economics analysis Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do e
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A shipper is not strictly liable for transporting hazardous materials if