Strict Liability

Question 1

Strict Liability

Answer 1

• Trespass to Chattels
• Conversion
• Animals
• Ultra-hazardous or abnormally dangerous activities
• Private Nuisance
• Vicarious Liability

Question 2

Causation

Answer 2

Defendant engaging in activity that gives rise to strict liability had to cause the plaintiff’s injury

• exact type of harm that made conduct subject to strict liability resulted
• EX: Driving a truck full of dynamite through a city (explodes and kills people = strict liability; fail to stop at a red-light hitting a pedestrian = negligence)

Question 3

Trespass to Chattels

Answer 3

Intent to exercise control over the property, even when she mistakenly believes, or acting in good faith, that the property belongs to them

Question 4

What is a chattel?

Answer 4

• Movable item/good (car, phone, pet)
• NOT a house or structure on land
• For internet - needs to actually affect the website’s/email’s ability to function

Question 5

Trespass to Chattels Elements

Answer 5

• 1) the plaintiff owns or has the right to possess the personal property at issue;
• 2) the tortfeasor intentionally interfered with the plaintiff’s property;
• 3) the tortfeasor deprived the plaintiff of possession or use of the property at issue; and
• 4) the interference caused damages to the plaintiff

Question 6

Conversion

Answer 6

• 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
• Innocent converters will still be held liable
• Good faith conversion: repay the value of the item minus costs of obtaining

Question 7

Conversion Elements

Answer 7

• Intentional
• Exercise of Dominion and Control (taking over title and treating as own)
• chattel of another
• so serious as to warrant full value as damages

Question 8

Factors of Conversion

Answer 8

• The extent and duration of the actor’s exercise of dominion or control;
• The actor’s intent to assert a right in fact inconsistent with the other’s right of control;
• The actor’s good faith (or lack thereof);
• The extent and duration of the resulting interference with the other’s right of control;
• The harm done to the chattel;
• The inconvenience and expense caused to the other

Question 9

Abnormally Dangerous Animals

Answer 9

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.

Question 10

Wild Animals

Answer 10

Strict liability

Ex: lions, tigers, bars, etc. (not manatees)

Question 11

Domestic Animals

Answer 11

• Known propensity for violence (Strict Liability)
• Ex: Dog that has a known history of growling, snarling, and attacking
• No known propensity for violence (Negligence)

Question 12

Ultrahazardous or Abnormally Dangerous Activities

Answer 12

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.

Question 13

6 Factors: Ultra-hazardous or Abnormally Dangerous Activities

Answer 13

• 1. Existence of a high degree of risk
• 2. Likelihood that resulting harm will be great
• 3. Inability to eliminate the risk by exercise of reasonable care
• 4. Extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage
• 5. Inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on
     
     6. Extent to which its value to the community outweighed by its dangerous attributes

Question 14

What is an ultra-hazardous/abnormally dangerous activity?

Answer 14

• High risk even when exercising reasonable care
• Activity is not a matter of common usage
• Value of the activity to the community compared to danger

Question 15

Private Nuisance

Answer 15

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:

• The other has property rights and privileges in respect to the use or enjoyment interfered with; and
• The invasion is substantial; and
• The actor’s conduct is a legal cause of the invasion; and
• The invasion is either (i) intentional and unreasonable; or (ii) unintentional and otherwise actionable under the rules governing liability for negligent, reckless, or ultra-hazardous conduct

Question 16

Unreasonableness of Intentional Invasion

Answer 16

• The gravity of the harm outweighs the utility of the actor’s conduct, or
• 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

Question 17

Statutory Compliance: Defenses to Private Nuisance

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

Coming to the Nuisance: Defense for Private Nuisance

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

Public Nuisance

Answer 19

• Is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public
• 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

Question 20

Examples of Public Nuisance

Answer 20

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

Question 21

Vicarious Liability: Respondeat Superior

Answer 21

• 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

Question 22

Scope of Employment

Answer 22

• 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

Question 23

Independent Contractor

Answer 23

Independent contractors are not covered because, since they aren’t employees, the employer cannot control their conduct

Question 24

Frolic and Detour (Respondeat Superior)

Answer 24

Respondeat Superior covers minor deviations but not substantial deviations.

Factors to consider in assessing the extent of the deviation include:

• 1. The intent and purpose in making the deviation
• 2. Whether it was reasonably expected by the employer or type of work
• 3. The amount of distance or time spent in the deviation
• 4. Another word for these factors = Foreseeability

Question 25

Defenses to Strict Liability

Answer 25

• Contributory Negligence (not a defense, does not bar recovery)
• Comparative fault
• Assumption of Risk
  -Statutory Privilege
  -

Question 26

Contributory Negligence (Defense to Strict Liability)

Answer 26

The plaintiff’s contributory negligence is not a defense to strict liability (does not bar recovery)

Question 27

Comparative Fault (Defense to Strict Liability)

Answer 27

• Defendant’s liability, based on strict liability, should be reduced by the comparative fault of the plaintiff
• The plaintiff’s contributory negligence will reduce the plaintiff’s recovery under strict liability claim, unless the plaintiff’s negligence rises to the level of a knowing assumption of risk

Question 28

Assumption of Risk (Defense to Strict Liability)

Answer 28

The plaintiff’s assumption of the risk bars his recovery in a strict-liability action

Question 29

Statutory Privilege (Defense to Strict Liability)

Answer 29

Performance of an essential public service exempts one from strict liability; however, liability may still exist under a negligence theory

Question 30

Frolic & Detour - Respondeat Superior (Vicarious Liability)

Answer 30

• Respondeat superior covers minor deviations but not substantial deviations
• Factors to consider in assessing the extent of the deviation include:
• 1) the intent and purpose in making the deviation; -2) whether it was reasonably expected by the employer or type of work;
  3) the amount of distance or time spent in the deviation.
• Another word for these factors: Foreseeability.