Strict Liability

Question 1

Reciprocity of Risk

Answer 1

You shouldn’t apply strict liability when two actors are working against each other. However, in other contcontexts you may want to apply strict liability

Question 2

Corrective Justice/ Fairness

Answer 2

Strict Liability works well under a theory that tort is to compensate the victim. When you have two innocent parties , you want to restore the victim through strict liability

Question 3

Abnormally Dangerous Activity

Answer 3

A defendant who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to strict liability for physical harm resulting from the activity.

An activity is abnormally dangerous if:

1. The activity creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors
2. The activity is not a matter of common usage
3. Inability to eliminate the risk by way of reasonable care
4. Appropriateness of activity
5. Extent to which the activity is of value to the community (if benefits outweigh the risks then activity will be permitted-think about cars).
6. Likelihood that the harm results from it will be great

• Contributory negligence not a defense.
• Assumption of risk is a bar to recovery

Question 4

Spano

Answer 4

Dynamite blasts damages garage.

Rule: In the case blasting operations, failure to prove negligence will not bar recovery when damage to an innocent party results from the blasting. Because blasting is an abnormally dangerous activity, public policy requires that the costs of the damage resulting to innocent parties be borne by those undertaking the blasting, even when they have not behaved negligently.

Court held: Strict liability because of ultra dangerous activity. it doesn’t matter how many precautions you take, you can’t remove risk. Requires extreme precautions

Question 5

Indiana Harbor v. American Cynanamid

Answer 5

American manufactured chemicals that were transported via train through Chicago Metro area.

Rule: The determination of whether an activity is abnormally dangerous depends on the application of several factors, including if accidents cannot be prevented by the exercise of ordinary due care.

Court held: Not strictly liable. Negligence case. Unnecessary to hold the company strictly liable when it is clear someone was negligent. If ordinary prudence can avoid the ancient, stick to negligence

P: The other dimension is to keep population away form train tracks. Blind spot to cost benefit only seeing numbers and nothing else.

It may be cheaper to live near train yard. People would live elsewhere if they could.