Strict Liability Flashcards
A prima facie case for strict liability requires
A prima facie case for strict liability requires
(i) an absolute duty to make the plaintiff’s person or property safe,
(ii) breach,
(iii) actual and proximate causation, and
(iv) damages.
The three general situations in which strict liability is imposed are:
i) Dangerous activities;
ii) Animals; and
iii) Defective or dangerous products.
MNEMONIC: DAD
EXAM NOTE: The “DAD” situations are the only situations in which a defendant can be liable without fault.
Abnormally Dangerous Activity
Basic Rule
A defendant engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity will
Basic Rule
A defendant engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity will be held strictly liable—without any proof of negligence—for personal injuries and property damage caused by the activity, regardless of precautions taken to prevent the harm. Rest. 3d: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 20.
Abnormally dangerous means that an activity:
Abnormally dangerous means that an activity:
i) Creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised; and
ii) The activity is not commonly engaged in.
In addition to these requirements, in evaluating whether an activity is abnormally dangerous, courts often consider the gravity of the harm resulting from the activity, the** inappropriateness of the place **where the activity is being conducted, and the limited value of the activity to the community.
EXAM NOTE: The focus is on the inherent nature of the activity, not on how careful the defendant may or may not have been in conducting the activity.
Common abnormally dangerous activities include:
mining, blasting, using explosives, fumigating, excavating, disposing of hazardous waste, storing gasoline in residential areas, storing toxic chemicals and gases, and storing large quantities of water and other liquids.
Strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity exists only if
Strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity exists only if **harm that actually occurs results from the risk that made the activity abnormally dangerous in the first place. **
Example: If the defendant’s employee drops a heavy package of explosives, hitting the plaintiff’s head, and causing a concussion, the plaintiff’s claim is for negligence, not strict liability. The concussion is not the type of harm (i.e., an explosion) that makes the use of explosives an abnormally dangerous activity.
As in the case with superseding causes in negligence (see § IV.E.3.c. Intervening and superseding causes, supra), the defendant’s liability can be cut off by unforeseeable intervening causes.
Rule from Rylands v. Fletcher,
(1868) (involving the release of water from the defendant’s reservoir onto the plaintiff’s property).
A defendant is strictly liable for the consequences that occur when he “…for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.”
The narrow holding of Rylands—that an owner of property with a dam on it is strictly liable for the harm caused by the release of water due to the bursting of the dam—is still followed. However, the broader principle of strict liability for harm caused by any dangerous object brought onto property by the landowner is no longer always followed. Instead, courts usually hold that only abnormally dangerous activities are subject to strict liability.
A “wild animal” is ______.
A wild animal is an animal that, as a species or a class, is not by custom devoted to the service of humankind in the place where it is being kept.
For example, a wild elephant that has been tamed and exhibited as part of a circus remains categorized as a wild animal.
The possessor of a wild animal is strictly liable for harm done by that animal
The possessor of a wild animal is strictly liable for harm done by that animal, in spite of any precautions the possessor has taken to confine the animal or prevent the harm, if the harm arises from a dangerous propensity that is characteristic of such a wild animal OR of which the owner has reason to know.
The plaintiff must not knowingly do anything to bring about his own injury.
Wild animals
Plaintiff’s Fearful Reaction
Strict liability applies to an injury caused by a plaintiff’s fearful reaction to the sight of an unrestrained wild animal, in addition to injuries caused directly by the wild animal.
A domestic animal’s owner is strictly liable for injuries caused by that animal if
A domestic animal’s owner is strictly liable for injuries caused by that animal if he knows or has reason to know of the animal’s dangerous propensities and the harm results from those dangerous propensities. Otherwise, at common law, a domestic animal owner is liable only for negligence.
Many states have enacted “dog-bite” statutes that hold owners of dogs or other domestic animals designated in the statute strictly liable for damages resulting from personal injuries.
