Strict Liability

Question 1

Strict Liability Definition

Answer 1

Don’t need to show negligence, D always liable for harm caused by specific actions (still need to show causation and damages)

Question 2

Rylands

Answer 2

• British cases relating to property damage from flooding caused by building reservoir over old coal mines – anything that escapes property and causes harm to another landowner liable regardless of fault
• Focused on activities, not care level
o Is the tortious act an unnatural use of the land?
o Look to the level of activity; more it’s done, more likely to cause harm
• Want to incentivize limiting dangerous activities and extraordinary care
• US Courts don’t follow the “natural” vs. “unnatural” use distinction of British courts (storage of water/irrigation example in Turner Texas case)

Question 3

Noxious Trades and Strict Liability

Answer 3

• Noxious trades (pulp mill, slaughter house, etc) NOT appropriate for S/L –> no real damages (just smell, property devaluation), dealt with through ordinances and zoning –> more of a property issue

Question 4

Sullivan v. Dunham

Answer 4

• F: Dynamiting tree; fragment of tree flies 400 feet, hits and kills P on public highway
• H: D is liable to P for any damage because abnormally dangerous activity; as long as P was lawfully where they were (e.g. doesn’t protect trespassers)
• Relies on theory of trespass physical intrusion; extends precedent from Hay
• Uses S/L to protect people, in addition to property (as in earlier S/L cases)

Question 5

Restatement on “Abnormally Dangerous” Activity

Answer 5

1. High degree of risk of some harm to person/land/chattels of others
   
   2. Likelihood that resulting harm will be great
   3. Inability to eliminate risk by exercise of reasonable care most impt.
   4. Extent to which activity is not matter of common usage
      ▪ If use is very common, then P may have assumed the risk; if uncommon or unknown better case for S/L
   5. Inappropriateness of activity to the place where it is carried out
      ▪ Locality is an issue is it common for town, city, state?
   6. Extent to which activity’s value to community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes

Question 6

Indiana Harbor Belt RR Co. v. American Cyanamid

Answer 6

• F: leaking hazardous chemical from railroad car because lid/valve broke; causes local evacuation; P needed to pay Dept. Environmental Protection for cleanup costs/fines; DEP seeks recovery from D
• H: Trial court awards summary j to P on strict liability claim, dismisses negligence claim; 7th Cir (Posner) reverses – says that this is not case of strict liability, but instead negligence (could use RIL)
• DEP arguing that S/L would incentivize them taking dangerous chemicals to destination on tracks that don’t go through major urban centers judge says that’s not possible on railroad system (hub and spoke)
• Applies the Restatement factors for “abnormally dangerous” activity, supra
o First applies to Guille – ballooning case where D lands on P’s vegetable garden in NY; there the factors were satisfied so strict liability was imposed
• Here, concludes that harm/risk could have been eliminated by the exercise of due care thus not a strict liability case
• For strict liability, we look to abnormally dangerous activities not abnormally dangerous substances – so generally manufacturer not liable in these “abnormally dangerous” cases (issue for SL in products liability comes up)

Question 7

Goals of Strict Liability

Answer 7

1. Loss-spreading across an enterprise – accident costs should be collectively, not individually, borne
2. Loss Avoidance (Risk Reduction) – deterrence function, incentivize extraordinary care
3. Loss Allocation (Internalization) – enterprise internalizes costs from S/L causing them to make better-informed choices, invest in safety, moderate dangerous activities
4. Administrative Efficiency – simplifies liability determinations in courts
5. Fairness
6. Protection of Individual Autonomy