Strict Liability

Question 1

Strict Liability

Answer 1

Raises questions of tort liability arising from competing land uses & fits within the framework of trespass & nuisance

Question 2

1st Restatement

Answer 2

Strict liability imposed on those engaging in an “ultrahazardous” activity, which

1. necessarily involves a risk of serious harm to the person, land or chattels of others which cannot be eliminated by the exercise of the utmost care, and
2. is not a matter of common usage.

Question 3

2d Restatement

Answer 3

(Klein v. Pyrodyne Corp.)
–Any party carrying on an “abnormally dangerous activity” is strictly liable for ensuing damages, limited to the kinds of harm that make the activity dangerous in the first place.
–Test:
1. High probability of risk of harm
2. Likelihood of severe harm
3. Inability to eliminate the risk by reasonable care
4. Not a matter of common usage
5. Inappropriateness of location of activity
6. Danger outweighs value of activity to the community
–Any one of the elements is not sufficient alone, several will be required for strict liability, but it’s not necessary that all be present if others weigh heavily
–The essential question is whether the risk created is so unusual, either in magnitude or due to the circumstances surrounding it, as to justify the imposition of strict liability for the harm that results from it, even though it is carried on with all reasonable care.
–A third person’s intervening acts of negligence will sometimes provide a defense from liability for those carrying on an abnormally dangerous activity only if those acts were unforeseeable in relation to the extraordinary risk created by the activity.

Question 4

3d Restatement

Answer 4

Same as 1st, but uses “abnormally dangerous” (unusual context) rather than “ultrahazardous” (an inherent quality.

1. The activity creates a foreseeable & highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors, and
2. The activity is not one of common usage