CHAP10 Strict, or Absolute, Liability

Question 1

Chapter 10: Strict, or Absolute, Liability

I. An Overview of Strict Liability (1 of 2)

Fault is&raquo_space;.

Because negligence is&raquo_space;, the duty of&raquo_space;&raquo_space; is also&raquo_space;.

Absolute liability is restricted to certain activities, such as&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space; and&raquo_space;&raquo_space;.

Answer 1

I. An Overview of Strict Liability

Fault is irrelevant.

Because negligence is irrelevant, the duty of reasonable care is also irrelevant.

Absolute liability is restricted to certain activities, such as abnormally dangerous tasks and defective products.

Question 2

Chapter 10: Strict, or Absolute, Liability

I. An Overview of Strict Liability (2 of 2)

Society has decided that persons engaging in those activities are in the&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space; to pay for&raquo_space;&raquo_space;.

Absolute liability is analogous to&raquo_space;.

Answer 2

I. An Overview of Strict Liability

Society has decided that persons engaging in those activities are in the best economic position to pay for plaintiffs’ injuries.

Absolute liability is analogous to insurance.

Question 3

Chapter 10: Strict, or Absolute, Liability

II. Animal Owners’ Liability

> > > > > > first arose in common law involving private ownership of wild animals and the use of fire and explosives.

American common law holds that the&raquo_space; (&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space; ), under its&raquo_space;&raquo_space;, owns wildlife&raquo_space;&raquo_space; for the benefit of all citizens.

Answer 3

II. Animal Owners’ Liability

Modern absolute liability first arose in common law involving private ownership of wild animals and the use of fire and explosives.

American common law holds that the state (or the federal government), under its police power, owns wildlife in trust for the benefit of all citizens.

Question 4

Chapter 10: Strict, or Absolute, Liability

II. Animal Owners’ Liability

Importance of Wildlife Ownership

Wildlife ownership is important for purposes of&raquo_space;, as the victim&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;.

Owners are&raquo_space;&raquo_space; for the injuries their wildlife inflict.

It does not matter that the owner exercised&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;.

Answer 4

Importance of Wildlife Ownership

Wildlife ownership is important for purposes of liability, as the victim cannot sue the beast.

Owners are strictly liable for the injuries their wildlife inflict.

It does not matter that the owner exercised every precaution to safeguard others from being hurt by the wild animals.

Question 5

Chapter 10: Strict, or Absolute, Liability

II. Animal Owners’ Liability

Comparison with Domesticated Animals

The law presumes domestic animals are&raquo_space;.

• The owner is liable if he or she was&raquo_space; in&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;.
• Liability also arises if an owner&raquo_space; uses domestic animals to&raquo_space;&raquo_space;.
• Owner is absolutely liable if domestic animal displays&raquo_space;&raquo_space; or if liability is imposed by&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;.

Answer 5

Comparison with Domesticated Animals

The law presumes domestic animals are harmless.

• The owner is liable if he or she was negligent in handling the animal.
• Liability also arises if an owner intentionally uses domestic animals to hurt someone.
• Owner is absolutely liable if domestic animal displays vicious propensities or if liability is imposed by state or local ordinance.

Question 6

Chapter 10: Strict, or Absolute, Liability

II. Animal Owners’ Liability

Defenses in Cases Involving Animal Owners’ Absolute Liability

The following defenses can protect an animal’s owner from strict liability: (1-4)

Answer 6

Defenses in Cases Involving Animal Owners’ Absolute Liability

The following defenses can protect an animal’s owner from strict liability:

1. Assumption of risk
2. Contributory and comparative negligence
3. Consent
4. Self-defense and defense of others

Question 7

Chapter 10: Strict, or Absolute, Liability

III. Abnormally Dangerous Activities (1 of 5)

To be abnormally dangerous, a defendant’s activity must create a&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space; plaintiff or a plaintiff’s&raquo_space;.

If the risk of harm can be eliminated through the use of reasonable care, the activity is not abnormally dangerous.

Answer 7

Abnormally Dangerous Activities

To be abnormally dangerous, a defendant’s activity must create a great threat of seriously injuring a plaintiff or a plaintiff’s property.

If the risk of harm can be eliminated through the use of reasonable care, the activity is not abnormally dangerous.

Question 8

Chapter 10: Strict, or Absolute, Liability

III. Abnormally Dangerous Activities (2 of 5)

The&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space; states that abnormally dangerous activities are not commonly undertaken or used in everyday life.

To be&raquo_space;, the activity or substance must have been inappropriately performed or used in the place in which the victim was harmed.

Answer 8

Abnormally Dangerous Activities

The common usage principle states that abnormally dangerous activities are not commonly undertaken or used in everyday life.

To be ultrahazardous, the activity or substance must have been inappropriately performed or used in the place in which the victim was harmed.

Question 9

Chapter 10: Strict, or Absolute, Liability

III. Abnormally Dangerous Activities (3 of 5)

Courts often apply a balancing test to decide if an activity is abnormally dangerous. This test compares&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space; with the&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space; from the activity.

Answer 9

Abnormally Dangerous Activities (3 of 5)

Courts often apply a balancing test to decide if an activity is abnormally dangerous. This test compares the dangers created by the activity with the benefits that the community derives from the activity.

Question 10

Chapter 10: Strict, or Absolute, Liability

III. Abnormally Dangerous Activities (4 of 5)

Many state legislatures have enacted statutes protecting abnormally dangerous activities from strict liability.

These statutes commonly shield&raquo_space;&raquo_space; that distribute electricity and natural gas,&raquo_space;&raquo_space; that perform construction for the government, and&raquo_space;&raquo_space; or&raquo_space; that maintain wild animals.

Answer 10

Abnormally Dangerous Activities (4 of 5)

Many state legislatures have enacted statutes protecting abnormally dangerous activities from strict liability.

These statutes commonly shield public utilities that distribute electricity and natural gas, private contractors that perform construction for the government, and municipal zoos or parks that maintain wild animals.

Question 11

Chapter 10: Strict, or Absolute, Liability

III. Abnormally Dangerous Activities (5 of 5)

Under statutes protecting abnormally dangerous activities from strict liability, plaintiffs must prove that the defendants were&raquo_space; or&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;.

Answer 11

Abnormally Dangerous Activities (5 of 5)

Under statutes protecting abnormally dangerous activities from strict liability, plaintiffs must prove that the defendants were negligent or committed intentional torts.

Question 12

Chapter 10: Strict, or Absolute, Liability

IV. Scope of Liability: Proximate Cause (1 of 2)

Proximate cause in absolute liability cases is defined similarly to proximate cause in&raquo_space;&raquo_space;.

Animals or abnormally dangerous activities must&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space; if the tortfeasor is to be held strictly liable.

Answer 12

Scope of Liability: Proximate Cause (1 of 2)

Proximate cause in absolute liability cases is defined similarly to proximate cause in negligence cases.

Animals or abnormally dangerous activities must proximately caused the victim’s injuries if the tortfeasor is to be held strictly liable.

Question 13

Chapter 10: Strict, or Absolute, Liability

IV. Scope of Liability: Proximate Cause (2 of 2)

For absolute liability purposes, proximate cause has the following elements: 1 - 2

Negligence is irrelevant to strict liability; therefore, the&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space; is also irrelevant.

Answer 13

For absolute liability purposes, proximate cause has the following elements:

1. Plaintiff’s injuries must have been a reasonably foreseeable consequence of defendant’s actions.
2. The victim must have been a foreseeable plaintiff.

Negligence is irrelevant to strict liability; therefore, the duty of reasonable care is also irrelevant.

Question 14

Chapter 10: Strict, or Absolute, Liability

V. Mass Torts and Class Actions (1 of 2)

Mass Torts

A mass tort occurs when a&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space; are injured as a result of a&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;.

A mass tort&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space;&raquo_space; into a single trial.

Answer 14

V. Mass Torts and Class Actions (1 of 2)

Mass Torts

A mass tort occurs when a large group of people are injured as a result of a single tortious act.

A mass tort combines many legal cases into a single trial.
The tragedy of September 11, 2001, is an example of a mass tort.

ex. The tragedy of September 11, 2001, is an example of a mass tort.

Question 15

Chapter 10: Strict, or Absolute, Liability

V. Mass Torts and Class Actions (2 of 2)

Class Actions

A mass tort is V. Mass Torts and Class Actions (2 of 2)

A mass tort is&raquo_space; from a class action.

A class action encompasses a&raquo_space;&raquo_space; of plaintiffs who have been harmed.

A lawsuit is brought by an&raquo_space; for himself or herself and&raquo_space;&raquo_space; in the same situation.

Answer 15

V. Mass Torts and Class Actions (2 of 2)

Class Actions

A mass tort is distinguishable from a class action.

A class action encompasses a smaller group of plaintiffs who have been harmed.

A lawsuit is brought by an individual for himself or herself and other persons in the same situation.