## Facts

- FMC operated a chemical manufacturing plant in Tonawanda, New York, near Dunlop’s tire manufacturing plant.
- On March 1, 1973, an explosion at FMC’s facility cast stones and debris onto Dunlop’s plant and caused damage by concussion.
- Dunlop’s plant was less than 1,200 feet from the explosion site, separated from FMC’s property by railroad tracks in an industrial area.
- The explosion destroyed electric transmission towers and distribution lines owned by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation that ran in front of FMC’s plant and supplied power to Dunlop.
- Dunlop lost electrical power and shut down operations for about 24 hours, alleging substantial economic loss, including lost profits.
- Dunlop sued FMC asserting negligence (and also trespass, nuisance, and strict liability), seeking damages for both physical damage and shutdown-related losses.
- FMC moved to dismiss the negligence claim to the extent it sought recovery for losses tied to damage to Niagara Mohawk’s property; FMC conceded the complaint’s factual allegations for purposes of the motion.

## Issues

1. Whether Dunlop was within the foreseeable zone of danger from FMC’s operations such that FMC owed Dunlop a duty of reasonable care in negligence.
2. Whether the negligence pleading stated a cognizable claim for (a) physical damage from debris and concussion and (b) economic losses from a power outage caused by damage to third-party transmission facilities.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the order denying FMC’s motion to dismiss.
- Taking the pleaded facts as true, Dunlop was within the zone of foreseeable danger created by FMC’s chemical-plant operations and the risk of explosion.
- The complaint sufficiently alleged a negligence claim for physical damage from flying debris and concussion.
- At the pleading stage, the complaint also sufficiently alleged that power-loss shutdown damages were proximately caused by FMC’s negligence and could not be dismissed as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- On a motion to dismiss addressed to the pleadings, the court assumes the truth of the plaintiff’s factual allegations and asks only whether the facts, if proven, would entitle the plaintiff to relief.
- Negligence duty turns on foreseeability; a plaintiff within the reasonably foreseeable zone of danger from the defendant’s conduct states a duty-based claim.
- For hazardous industrial operations conducted in close proximity to other businesses, the risk of explosion-related harm to nearby property may be foreseeable, making reasonable care a jury question.
- Economic losses tied to a physically destructive event may proceed past the pleading stage where the plaintiff plausibly alleges proximate cause and a duty running to the plaintiff, even if some physical damage was to third-party infrastructure.

## Conclusion

The court held that a nearby manufacturer plausibly alleged a negligence duty and foreseeable harm from a chemical-plant explosion, permitting claims to proceed for both direct blast-related property damage and shutdown losses allegedly caused by destruction of power-transmission facilities serving the plaintiff.


Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp. v. FMC Corp., 53 A.D.2d 150, 385 N.Y.S.2d 971 (App. Div. 4th Dep’t 1976)