How the Boston Molasses Flood Began a New Era of Liability
A century ago on January 15, 1919, ominous groans filled the lunchtime air on Commercial Street in Boston. The sound of rivets popping preceded a massive rumble as a 50-foot-tall steel tank exploded, unleashing a wave of molasses that killed 21 people and injured 150.
Long a part of Boston lore, the Great Molasses Flood was a turning point in building and business regulations for the United States. Gross negligence would no longer be brushed aside as the price of progress.
The Boston Molasses Tsunami
Purity Distilling built the 90-foot wide, 50-foot tall tank on Commercial Street in Boston, one of the city’s most densely populated areas, to take advantage of its proximity to the city’s wharves. Molasses had been in high demand throughout World War I. Boiled down into industrial alcohol, molasses was a primary ingredient in dry powder and TNT.
Construction of the tank was overseen by Purity Distilling manager Arthur Jell, who had no background in engineering. Because the tank was considered a storage structure and not a building, no permits were needed from the City of Boston and no inspections by city officials were apparently undertaken.
Jell himself cut corners on safety, failing to fill the 2.5 million-gallon tank to test its stability. After pouring six inches of water into the tank, it was deemed ready for use. As molasses piled up, the tank began to leak from its rivets and access points. Purity Distilling responded by painting the steel brown to conceal the leaks. Locals knew that free molasses was available to anyone with a bottle or can and the courage to stand near the tank as it dripped molasses from its holes.
Subsequent analysis by engineers revealed two main defects in the tank’s construction. The steel used on the tank was too thin to hold a full-capacity load. The steel also lacked sufficient magnesium to give it flexibility in cold temperatures. As the mercury dropped, the steel became brittle and the molasses became less gooey.
One day prior to the molasses flood, the temperature rose from 2 degrees Fahrenheit to 40, then cooled. That same day the tank was filled to 2.3 million gallons with a fresh shipment of molasses, which may have triggered additional fermentation that added gas pressure inside the tank.
On January 15, the pressure was too much. The tank failed, sending a 25-foot-high wall of molasses across two blocks of Boston at speeds up to 35 miles per hour. Buildings in its path were demolished. People and horses were crushed and suffocated. A man-made molasses tsunami erased a corner of Boston’s North End.
The Legal Aftermath of the Boston Molasses Flood
The magnitude of the Boston Molasses Flood made the story a national sensation and brought heavy scrutiny to Purity Distilling and its owner, U.S. Industrial Alcohol. Building codes and regulations existed at the time, but deep-pocketed industrialists could often find ways to get what they wanted.
A subsequent investigation by Colonel Hugh Ogden, acting on behalf of the Massachusetts Superior Court, revealed the extent of Purity Distilling’s negligence. Not only was Arthur Jell completely unqualified to commission the tank, he had failed to involve engineers and architects to ensure its safe construction. Concerns about the tank were ignored during the years it stood. No one questioned the decision to place the tank in a bustling industrial and residential neighborhood.
U.S. Industrial Alcohol attempted to blame the tank’s failure on anarchists in Boston’s largely Italian North End. Ogden spent six years reviewing evidence and soundly determined that no bomb was to blame for the disaster, only the failure of U.S. Industrial Alcohol and Purity Distilling to consider safety. In 1925, the company was fined $1,000,000, worth approximately $7,000,000 a century later.
The verdict caught the business world by surprise and heralded a new era where regulation would be taken seriously and gross negligence would incur stiff financial penalties. The City of Boston began to demand that all engineering plans and blueprints be filed and reviewed by professionals before permits would be issued. City inspectors would scrutinize every aspect of construction before allowing structures to be used. Zoning laws would separate dangerous industry from dense neighborhoods.
What began in Boston spread throughout the United States, including a new attitude that individuals and corporations should be held liable when negligence resulted in death.
At Sheff Law, we are proud to work in Massachusetts, the first state to take a meaningful stand against substandard safety practices. Through our work in premises liability and workplace accidents we continue to hold negligent companies and individuals accountable for their actions. Seeking justice for those hurt or killed in accidents is about making those individuals and their families as whole as they can be, but it is also an important step in keeping all people safe.
We provide free consultations for those who have been hurt in accidents. Contact us online or call us at 1-888-423-4477.
