Strict Liability Flashcards
Abnormally Dangerous Activity
An abnormally dangerous activity is an uncommon activity in the community that creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of bodily harm or property damage—even when reasonable care is used.
Strict liability is imposed when the plaintiff’s harm results from a hazard that makes the activity abnormally dangerous.
Can strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity be negated by the use of reasonable care?
NO.
Strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity cannot be negated by the use of reasonable care.
Strict liability will be imposed on an owner of a domesticated animal when:
The owner of a domestic animal (e.g., rooster) is generally not strictly liable (i.e., liable without proof of fault) for any physical harm caused by the animal.
However, strict liability will be imposed when:
1) the owner knew or had reason to know about the domestic animal’s dangerous propensities (i.e., behavior uncommon for its species) AND
2) the plaintiff’s harm arose from those dangerous propensities.
Strict Animal Liability
The owner of a domestic animal is strictly liable (i.e., liable without proof of fault) for bodily harm caused by his/her domestic animal if:
1) the owner knew or had reason to know about the domestic animal’s dangerous propensities (i.e., behavior uncommon for its species) and
2) the plaintiff’s harm arose from those dangerous propensities.
However, in a pure comparative-negligence jurisdiction (default rule on the MBE), assumption of the risk is a defense to strict liability claims based on injuries caused by wild or abnormally dangerous domestic animals.
- Assumption of the risk arises when the plaintiff voluntarily engages the animal despite knowing of its dangerous propensities.
Does strict liability for damages caused by any animal, wild or domestic, extend to the owner of the land on which the animals are kept, even when the animals are on the land with the landowner’s permission?
NO.
The owner of any animal, wild or domestic (other than a household pets) is strictly liable for any reasonably foreseeable damages caused by the animal while trespassing on another’s land.
Strict liability does not extend to the owner of the land on which the animals are kept, even when the animals are on the land with the landowner’s permission, unless the landowner also has the right to possess the animals.
If the owner has no reason to believe their domesticated animal would attack any person who was in their yard, can they be held strictly liable for injuries to a plaintiff caused by their domesticated animal like a cat?
The owner or possessor of an animal is strictly liable for injuries caused by that animal if he knows or has reason to know that the animal has dangerous propensities abnormal for the animal’s category or species, and the harm results from those dangerous propensities.
- Otherwise, at common law, the owner of a domestic animal is generally liable only for negligence.
Does strict liability apply to an injury caused by a plaintiff’s fearful reaction to the sight of an unrestrained wild animal?
YES.
Strict liability applies to an injury caused by a plaintiff’s fearful reaction to the sight of an unrestrained wild animal.
Vicarious liability
Vicarious liability is a form of strict liability in which one person is liable for the tortious actions of another.
Under the theory of respondeat superior, an employer is liable for the tortious conduct of an employee that is within the scope of employment.
Would a company be held vicariously liable if they provided a car to an employee for both business and personal use and he drove home drunk and injured a pedestrian?
NO.
As long as he was not within the scope of his employment.
Example: MBE Practice Exam #1: In this case, the employee had several drinks at a bar and then drove home. He was not acting within the scope of his employment, and thus the company would not be held vicariously liable for his actions.
