Strict Liability

Question 1

Strict Liability

Answer 1

if you are doing something really risky and someone gets hurt, even if you were careful, you are responsible for the injuries and have to pay for them

Defendant is held liable for P injury even if D exercised all the care in the world.

Question 2

Strict Liability: Prima Facie (elements)

Answer 2

1. The nature of the defendant’s activity imposes a strict duty to make it safe.
2. The dangerous aspect of the activity is the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury.
3. The plaintiff suffered damage to their person or property.

(ezz–> 1. If what the defendant is doing is naturally risky, they have to take extra care to make it safe.

2. The specific dangerous part of what they were doing directly caused the plaintiff’s injury.
3. The plaintiff actually got hurt or had their stuff damaged because of it.)

Question 3

Animals & Strict Liability- who is liable

Answer 3

OWNER is strictly liable for wild animals even if they exercised the utmost care

keeper of wild animal is required to know the dangerous characteristics that are normal to the class (type of animal) it belongs to
-owner is liable for harm resulting from a behaviour that is a characteristic of a wild animal of that particular class

Question 4

Zookeeper Exception

Answer 4

most jurisdictions subject zoos to negligent liability rather than strict liability, because of their educational benefit to society

Question 5

Domestic Animal Rule

Answer 5

if you own a normal domestic animal like a pet or a farm animal, you are not automatically responsible if it hurts someone.
however if you knew your animal was dangerous or more aggressive or harmful than usual for its type, then you can be held responsible, even if the animal hasn’t hurt anyone before

if owner knows that animal is abnormally dangerous = owner can be held strictly liable

strict liability applies even in cases where the owner attempted to keep the animal leashed or confined

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE CAN NOT BE USED AS A DEFENCE HERE

Question 6

abnormally dangerous activity if……

Answer 6

1. the activity causes a very likely risk of physical harm, even if everyone involved is careful
2. the activity isn’t something that people usually do.

Question 7

can a defendant be held liable for damages caused by an unnatural use of the land, even if there is no negligence on their part (in causing the damage)

Answer 7

Yes the defendant can be held liable, bcz defendant disrupted natural state of the property in some way

Question 8

Factors to determine if an activity is ultra hazardous

Answer 8

1. The degree of risk of harm to others.
2. The likelihood that the harm will be severe.
3. The inability to eliminate the risk through use of reasonable care.
4. The extent to which the activity is not common.
5. The inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is taking place.
6. The extent to which the activity’s value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous characteristics.

Question 9

Limitations on Strict Liability
can strict liability be imposed on a blasting company when the vibration and noise from the blasting causes a wild animal to kill its young?

Answer 9

No. Although blasting is an ultrahazardous activity, the risk of the activity that makes it ultrahazardous is not that the vibration or noise will cause nearby wild animals to kill their young. Rather, the characteristics of blasting that make it an ultrahazardous activity are the risks that flying debris will hit someone, or that the vibrations of the ground will injure someone.

Question 10

Is an individual strictly liable for keeping an animal that he knows has vicious tendencies?

Answer 10

YES,
unless plaintiff voluntarily or unnecessarily put himself in the way of the animal, as the plaintiff assumed the risk, the defendant may use the assumption of the risk defense

Question 11

Strict Liability

Answer 11

Liability without fault, does not matter the mental states or standards of care

Question 12

EZZ strict liability elements

Answer 12

DUTY
ACTUAL CAUSE
PROXIMATE CAUSE
HARM

Question 13

is contributory negligence jurisdiction allow a defence of contributory negligence for claims based on strict liability

Answer 13

usually no,
if in comparative fault jurisdiction, that defence may be allowed and can reduce the amount of damages.