Strict Liability Flashcards
Definition
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT IS HELD LIABLE ALTHOUGH HE NEITHER INTENTIONALLY INJURED PLAINTIFF NOR FAILED TO LIVE UP TO THE OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF REASONABLE CARE AS IN NEGLIGENCE.
Objective
to determine whether the facts fall into one of the recognized categories of cases in which the courts are willing to impose liability without fault. Policy is based on the nature of defendant’s activity which causes the harm
Three Primary Areas
- Animals (Liability may depend on the status of the individual (licensee or invitee; for unknown trespasser strict liability does not apply)
- Abnormally Dangerous/Ultra Hazardous activities
- Products Liability
Trespassing Animals
type of animal likely to roam (pigs, horses, cattle, sheep, etc).
Domestic Animals
in contact with man for such a long time or because of their nature the animal can be kept safely. Strict liability applies if owner is aware of dangerous propensities. This is generally referred to as the one free bite rule. But some states have statutorily done away with one free bite.
Wild/Dangerous animals
cannot be kept safely without restraint. Strict liability applies if harm results from that which makes the animal dangerous.
Abnormally Dangerous/Ultra hazardous activities elements (Restament 1 [AD] and 2[UH])
There is an absolute duty if the following apply:
a. Harm arises from that which makes the activity dangerous (Indiana Harbor Belt RR Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.; Foster v. Preston Mill Co.).
b. High risk of harm;
c. Risk cannot be eliminated through the use of reasonable care;
d. Activity is not a common one;
e. Inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on (Restatement II);
f. Extent to which the value to the community is outweighed by the dangerous attributes of the activity (Restatement II).
Abnormally Dangerous/Ultra Hazardous Activities Limitations/Defenses
a. Assumption of the risk is a valid d
b. Passive contributory negligence is not a valid defense
c. Comparative fault is a valid defense.
d. Unforeseeable intervening act of nature is a valid defense.
Approach when analyzing strict liability (non-products)
- Absolute duty to foreseeable plaintiff for foreseeable hazards to foreseeable plaintiff.
- Actual cause.
- Proximate cause.
- Damages.
- Apply defenses.
a. Contributory negligence is not a defense.
b. Comparative fault is a defense.
c. Assumption of risk is a defense.
Wild/Dangerous animals
cannot be kept safely without restraint. Strict liability applies if harm results from that which makes the animal dangerous.
Abnormally Dangerous/Ultra hazardous activities elements (Restament 1 [AD] and 2[UH])
There is an absolute duty if the following apply:
a. Harm arises from that which makes the activity dangerous (Indiana Harbor Belt RR Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.; Foster v. Preston Mill Co.).
b. High risk of harm;
c. Risk cannot be eliminated through the use of reasonable care;
d. Activity is not a common one;
e. Inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on (Restatement II);
f. Extent to which the value to the community is outweighed by the dangerous attributes of the activity (Restatement II).
Abnormally Dangerous/Ultra Hazardous Activities Limitations/Defenses
a. Assumption of the risk is a valid d
b. Passive contributory negligence is not a valid defense
c. Comparative fault is a valid defense.
d. Unforeseeable intervening act of nature is a valid defense.
Approach when analyzing strict liability (non-products)
- Absolute duty to foreseeable plaintiff for foreseeable hazards to foreseeable plaintiff.
- Actual cause.
- Proximate cause.
- Damages.
- Apply defenses.
a. Contributory negligence is not a defense.
b. Comparative fault is a defense.
c. Assumption of risk is a defense.
