On January 15, 1919, a 50-foot-tall holding tank
in Boston’s North End burst. 1 2.3 million gallons of
molasses that weighed 26 million pounds came out. The
molasses engulfed the streets. More than $100 million of
property damage in today’s dollars resulted, and it took
over 87,000 hours to clean the streets.
[1] The following year, a large and expensive class
action lawsuit was filed in order to hold accountable the
party responsible for the disaster. [2] The Superior Court
condensed 119 separate claims against United States
Industrial Alcohol (USIA) into one proceeding. [3] USIA,
however, claimed that anarchists blew up its tank. [4] It
appointed an “auditor” to hear the evidence and make
recommendations about liability and damages. [5] The
victims claimed USIA committed corporate negligence. [6]
It took 920 testimonies, 1,584 exhibits, and 25,000 pages of
transcript to assign responsibility. 2
The defense maintained that, because molasses made
the industrial alcohol used to produce munitions for
3 World War I—USIA had a plausible claim of sabotage.
Rampant anarchist activity had plagued the nation, and
anti-war posters covered the area surrounding the tank.
USIA had even received a threatening phone call before
the accident. Expert metallurgists constructed a replica
to “prove” the tank’s soundness, and records of repairs
illustrated safety efforts.
The plaintiffs divulged that, rather than appointing a
qualified engineer or architect to oversee the tank’s
4 construction, but USIA had appointed an accountant to
do the job. The accountant admitted that he could not read
blueprints, never consulted an expert, used cheap materials,
and never tested the tank’s soundness. Molasses had “wept”
from the tank’s seams from the beginning, and USIA had
ignored repeated warnings about structural insufficiencies.
Instead, it painted the tank brown in an effort to hide the
leaking syrup. In January of 1919, the addition of warm
molasses to existing cold molasses 5 embarked on a
fermentation process. The resulting carbon dioxide created
pressure that the weak steel could not withstand. The
decrepit tank burst.
After three years of proceedings, the auditor found
USIA liable and suggested it should pay damages of
$300,000—the equivalent of more than $30 million today.
6 Instead of rejecting the findings and going to trial
before a jury, USIA chose to settle the case. Ultimately,
7 we ended up paying more than double what the auditor
recommended to resolve all 119 cases.
Most people at that time viewed regulations as a
hindrance to economic 8 progress, however, the molasses
lawsuit ended the era of unrestricted Big Business with
the implementation of industrial safety standards. After
the judgment, inspections, regulations, and corporate
restrictions became commonplace. 9 Furthermore, the
trial illustrated the power of citizen action and encouraged
people to protect 10 they’re interests. The destruction of
Boston’s North End by a wave of molasses set in motion
events that, in turn, increased political participation and
ensured the safety of millions of industrial workers in the
years to come. 11
in Boston’s North End burst. 1 2.3 million gallons of
molasses that weighed 26 million pounds came out. The
molasses engulfed the streets. More than $100 million of
property damage in today’s dollars resulted, and it took
over 87,000 hours to clean the streets.
[1] The following year, a large and expensive class
action lawsuit was filed in order to hold accountable the
party responsible for the disaster. [2] The Superior Court
condensed 119 separate claims against United States
Industrial Alcohol (USIA) into one proceeding. [3] USIA,
however, claimed that anarchists blew up its tank. [4] It
appointed an “auditor” to hear the evidence and make
recommendations about liability and damages. [5] The
victims claimed USIA committed corporate negligence. [6]
It took 920 testimonies, 1,584 exhibits, and 25,000 pages of
transcript to assign responsibility. 2
The defense maintained that, because molasses made
the industrial alcohol used to produce munitions for
3 World War I—USIA had a plausible claim of sabotage.
Rampant anarchist activity had plagued the nation, and
anti-war posters covered the area surrounding the tank.
USIA had even received a threatening phone call before
the accident. Expert metallurgists constructed a replica
to “prove” the tank’s soundness, and records of repairs
illustrated safety efforts.
The plaintiffs divulged that, rather than appointing a
qualified engineer or architect to oversee the tank’s
4 construction, but USIA had appointed an accountant to
do the job. The accountant admitted that he could not read
blueprints, never consulted an expert, used cheap materials,
and never tested the tank’s soundness. Molasses had “wept”
from the tank’s seams from the beginning, and USIA had
ignored repeated warnings about structural insufficiencies.
Instead, it painted the tank brown in an effort to hide the
leaking syrup. In January of 1919, the addition of warm
molasses to existing cold molasses 5 embarked on a
fermentation process. The resulting carbon dioxide created
pressure that the weak steel could not withstand. The
decrepit tank burst.
After three years of proceedings, the auditor found
USIA liable and suggested it should pay damages of
$300,000—the equivalent of more than $30 million today.
6 Instead of rejecting the findings and going to trial
before a jury, USIA chose to settle the case. Ultimately,
7 we ended up paying more than double what the auditor
recommended to resolve all 119 cases.
Most people at that time viewed regulations as a
hindrance to economic 8 progress, however, the molasses
lawsuit ended the era of unrestricted Big Business with
the implementation of industrial safety standards. After
the judgment, inspections, regulations, and corporate
restrictions became commonplace. 9 Furthermore, the
trial illustrated the power of citizen action and encouraged
people to protect 10 they’re interests. The destruction of
Boston’s North End by a wave of molasses set in motion
events that, in turn, increased political participation and
ensured the safety of millions of industrial workers in the
years to come. 11