Strict Liability Flashcards
Trespass to Chattels
One who commits a trespass to a chattel is subject to liability to the possessor of the chattel if, but only if:
a. He dispossesses the other of the chattel, or
b. The chattel is impaired as to its condition, quality, or value, or
c. The possessor is deprived of the use of the chattel for a substantial time, or
d. Bodily harm is caused to the possessor, or harm is caused to some person or thing in which the possessor has a legal interest
You only pay for the amount damaged
Conversion
An intentional exercise of taking control of a chattel which seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel. The following factors are important:
a. The extent and duration of the actor’s exercise of dominion or control;
b. The actor’s intent to assert a right in fact inconsistent with the other’s right of control;
c. The actor’s good faith (or lack thereof);
d. The extent and duration of the resulting interference with the other’s right of control;
e. The harm done to the chattel;
f. The inconvenience and expense caused to the other
Abnormally Dangerous Animals
An owner or possessor of an animal that the owner or possessor knows or has reason to know has dangerous tendencies abnormal for the animal’s category is subject to strict liability for physical harm caused by the animal if the harm ensues from the dangerous tendency.
Wild Animals
Strict liability
Ex: lions, tigers, bars, etc.
Domestic Animals
Known propensity for violence (Strict Liability)
Ex: Dog that has a known history of growling, snarling, and attacking
No known propensity for violence (Negligence)
Ultrahazardous or Abnormally Dangerous Activities
One who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to liability for harm. Resulting from that activity, although he has exercised the utmost care to prevent the harm. This strict liability is limited to the kind of harm, the possibility of which make the activity abnormally dangerous. There are 6 factors to consider:
i. Existence of a high degree of risk
ii. Likelihood that resulting harm will be great
iii. Inability to eliminate the risk by exercise of reasonable care
iv. Extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage
v. Inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on
vi. Extent to which its value to the community outweighed by its dangerous attributes
Defenses to Strict Liability
Contributory Negligence
Comparative Fault
Assumption of Risk
Statutory Privilege
Private Nuisance
The actor is liable in an action for damages for a non-trespassory invasion of another’s interest in the private use and enjoyment of land if:
a. The other has property rights and privileges in respect to the use or enjoyment interfered with; and
b. The invasion is substantial; and
c. The actor’s conduct is a legal cause of the invasion; and
d. The invasion is either (i) intentional and unreasonable; or (ii) unintentional and otherwise actionable under the rules governing liability for negligent, reckless, or ultrahazardous conduct
Unreasonableness of Intentional Invasion
An intentional invasion of another’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land is unreasonable if:
a. The gravity of the harm outweighs the utility of the actor’s conduct, or
b. The harm caused by the conduct is serious and the financial burden of compensating for this and similar harm to others would not make the contribution of the conduct not feasible
Defenses to Private Nuisance
Statutory Compliance:
a. Compliance with a statute or local ordinance is not a complete defense to a nuisance action. However, such compliance may be admitted as evidence as to whether the interference with the π’s use and enjoyment of her land is unreasonable.
ii. Coming to the Nuisance:
a. Generally, not a defense that the π “came to the nuisance” by purchasing property in the vicinity of the ∆’s premises with knowledge of the nuisance operated by the ∆. However, the fact may still be considered.
Public Nuisance
i. Is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public.
ii. Examples: air pollution, pollution of navigable waterways, interference with the use of public highways, and interference with the public’s use of parks or other public property.
iii. A private citizen has a claim for public nuisance only if she suffers harm that is different in kind from that suffered by members of the general public
Vicarious Liability: Respondeat Superior
An employer is strictly responsible under vicarious liability for the acts of their employees of done within the “scope of employment”
An employer can be directly liable for their own breach of duty as to hiring, supervising, or training
- Ex: hiring as a delivery person, and then failing to supervise, an individual formally convicted of burglary
Scope of Employment
Motive: Was the employee acting with the intent to further his employer’s business purpose
Foreseeable: Was the employee acting in a way that is foreseeable in light of this type of employment
Frolic and Detour (Respondeat Superior)
Respondeat Superior covers minor deviations but not substantial deviations.
Factors to consider in assessing the extent of the deviation include:
- The intent and purpose in making the deviation
- Whether it was reasonably expected by the employer or type of work
- The amount of distance or time spent in the deviation
- Another word for these factors = Foreseeability
