Strict Liability Flashcards
*Thorns
Cutting thorns which fell on neighbor’s land, went to pick them up, where judge said there was trespass and RULE: if damage, should recompense. Brian (lawyer) argument was that if you accidentally hit a 3rd party with a stick while trying to use it to defend yourself against someone else, there is liability. Judge Littleton said if damage, should be recompensed - there are bleeding plaintiffs out there!
*Tithe
Court applied strict liability in a case where defendant moved corn out of a field to a barn where it perished because he was worried about beasts straying in the field. Good intent doesn’t matter – there would be a remedy against someone who directly destroyed the corn, so there should be a remedy here because same outcome for the poor corn owner.
*Weaver
Skirmish between trained soldiers in military exercise led to accidental wounding. Court pointed to the difference between felony where you need felonious intent and “trespass,” which is only damages for hurt/loss so answerable even where no intent UNLESS “judged utterly without his fault” (inevitable accident, which modern courts have rejected). EXCEPTION to strict – hinting at contributory negligence: if “defendant had committed no negligence to give occasion to the hurt – ex: plaintiff ran across gun while defendant discharging (experts think the judge basically wanted to know if reasonable steps could have been taken to avoid the accident).
Forms of action
Trespass and case writs covered most physical harms actionable at common law. To ask for trespass needed vi et armis or contra pacem regis (but could bring cases not like this under the writs by being dramatic, ex: horses being KILLED by blacksmith when really just malpractice in doing the horseshoe that led to eventual death). Trespass was for redress of harm caused by defendant’s direct and immediate application of force against plaintiff’s person or property. Case was for indirect harms not involving the use of force, but before case, trespass included everything, even if no force (like in Thorns). • Problems with writs: can’t sue owner and servant under same writ (direct harm required trespass and indirect harm required case). Yet, when the plaintiff picked trespass or case to argue, the defendant could easily say the facts were the opposite (immediate v. consequential) to get the case thrown out.
*Squib Case
Hot potato in marketplace by throwing squib. One judge said that trespass is both direct and consequential – “natural & probable consequence of act was injury” so it was trespass. One judge said that it was not trespass because that requires immediate injury, and here the injury was consequential, which is case. Notably, the final judge said that “Trespass is an injury accompanied with force, for which an action of trespass vi et armis [by force & arms] lies against the person from whom it is received” and agreed with 2nd judge in principle but not application, saying “The true question is, whether the injury is the direct and immediate act of the defendant; and I am of the opinion that in this case it is.” Overall, this meant there was trespass, and it also started breaking down the boundary between trespass and case because the final judge concluded that whatever mischief follows, he is the author of it.
*Spano
SL for blasting because better that one main surrenders particular use of his land than that another should be deprived of the beneficial use of his property altogether. Don’t need physical invasion. Not trying to keep from blasting, just saying you must pay for any and all damage! Blasting involves a substantial risk of harm no matter the degree of care exercised.
Madsen
But, even where strict liability, if damages are too remote, no recovery, like in Madsen where blasting noise caused deaths of mink babies killed by their mothers.
*Indiana Harbor Belt R.R.
ACC leased RR car to fill with toxic and flammable chemical and car began to leak. RR had to pay for decontamination measures. SL gives an incentive missing in negligence to experiment with methods of preventing accidents (though not with greater care) by relocating, changing, or reducing activity giving rise to accident. The greater the risk of accident and costs (PL) the more we want actor to consider activity change and therefore the stronger the case for SL. But here, no SL because no one suggests the leak was caused by the inherent properties of the chemical, so this accident could have been prevented with reasonable care. It can be deterred by negligence. If the car had been carefully maintained, virtually no risk. Risk can’t be minimized by rerouting. RR can’t get money for decontamination.
Siegler
Court upheld SL for gas transported on highways bc of huge risk.
