Strict Liability and Negligence 1850-1900 Flashcards
Introduction
i. Forms of action as procedural process are abolished by the “field Codes”
ii. Negligence concept applied to nonfeasance (non damage causing) of individuals charged either by contract or by statute with a duty of care
Brown v. Kendall
i. Facts:
1) the dogs of the P and the D are fighting. The D picks up a stick and starts to beat the dogs to keep them from fighting in the process the D is forced to back up as the dogs approach him. As he continues to beat them, on the backswing he hits the P in the eye and puts his eye out.
ii. Issue:
1) Is the D liable for assault and battery for hitting the P with the stick even though he did so unintentionally?
iii. Holding:
1) If the D acted with the kind of degree and care according to the prudent and cautious man standard, and as required by the exigency of this case, and if the D’s act was unintentional and lawful, the jury should find that the P should not recover. (unless the D has some fault) = Negligence
a) Unquestionable that the D act was lawful and proper; the result was a pure accident that was involuntary and unavoidable.
2) Jury instructed that the burden of proof is on the D to show that he acted with extraordinary care.
iv. Notes:
1) TL
a) According to these strict liability people, if you can bring a case for trespass and secure the writ – then you will win. Judge Shaw says that if there is an action then you can bring trespass or case but there may not be a case unless you can SHOW trespass
Some people could say that this was a brilliant ploy to get rid of strict liability from American common law and insert negligence into American common law. Shaw was an activist judge and changing the law.
Negligence and Economic Growth
i. Notes:
1) The rise of negligence in American tort law has been often viewed as a subsidy for protection of infant industries
a) Common law doctrines were transformed to create immunities from legal liability and thereby to provide substantial subsidies for those who undertook schemes of economic development
Schwartz: anaylzed every 19th century case in NH and CA and found no basis for the subsidy argument.
Fletcher v. Rylands Trial
i. Facts
1) Plaintiff leases a piece of land adjacent to the D’s land. The D decides to build a reservoir and contracts with a company to do so. The company builds the reservoir but fails to do anything about some tunnels they found filled with dirt under ground. After the reservoir is filled, it floods through the old tunnels and floods out the mines that the P leases and operates. He requests compensation.
ii. Holdings
1) Bramwell
a) D is liable for the damage done to the P land because his act caused the damage
a) Strict liability
b) Plaintiff has a right to be free from foreign water that he did not invite on to his property and was sent to him by the act of the D placing a reservoir on his property.
c) Contractors knew the reservoir could cause damage, because they found the tunnels,
d) However we are unsure.
2) Martin
a) Defendant not liable for damage to plaintiff’s land because defendant’s act did not directly cause the damage to plaintiff’s land (as would be required in a writ of trespass)
b) Rule of law is that negligence must be established in order hold liable a person doing the damage to personal property
c) Damage to plaintiff’s property was consequential, thereforeno trespass.
d) Contractors did not know of the existence of the old workings of the mine
e) No nuisance according to the generally understood meaning of that word
f) To hold defendant liable for plaintiff’s injuries would render him an insurer, which, would be contrary to legal analogy and principle
iii. Notes:
1) TL
a) Assume trespass writ is appropriate,
a) The P must show that the injury they suffered is an immediate consequence of the D’sact
plaintiff saw trespass writ as basis for STRICT LIABILITY
Fletcher v. Rylands Appellate
i. Holdings
1) Blackburn
a) Defendant is liable for damage to plaintiff’s property because it is established that damage was the consequence of default for which defendant is responsible
b) Does defendant have absolute duty to keep water, which will cause mischief if it escapes his land, or is his duty merely to take all reasonable and prudent precautions?
a) Absolute duty
One. defendant brought water onto land at his own peril and is responsible for the natural consequences of its escape this is UNNATURAL DAMAGE
b) If the something that escapes causes significant damage, LIABLE; if not significant, NOT LIABLE
c) When you are on the highway, you need to apply Negligence
d) When you are in your castle you need to apply Strict Liability
ii. Notes
1) TL
a) If you bring something on your land that is likely to cause mischief, then you are strictly Liable
Blackburn meant “ Something Very Dangerous!”
Fletcher v. Rylands Supreme
i. Holdings
1) Cairns
a) D is liable for damage to D’s property due to his unnatural use of water on his land and or because of imperfections of his use o water on his land
a) Largely strict liability
b) TL
a) Parked car on included driveway, defective steel in car, car rolls down and kills child
b) Strictly Liable? No
c) Is it a conventional use of the land?
a) Yes = Negligence
d) TL
a) Cairns wants to look at the natural use and this non natural use of land would lead us to look if strict liability arises.
2) Cranworth
a) Agrees with Blackburn such that the D is liable for any damage that results from the escape of that which he brought on his land
a) Largely strict liability
b) Smith v Kenrick
a) D not liable for water that naturally flowed form his upper mine to the P lower mine
c) Baird v Williamson
a) D held liable for pumping out water that naturally flowed into his mine, thereby causing damage to P’s land.
ii. Notes
1) TL
a) Flipper jumps out of the pool and lands on a child and kills it
a) Today, you are subject to strict liability if the activity you participate in:
One. Is an extremely dangerous activity; and
Two. an activity that is not usually engaged in; and
Three. the activity cannot be made safe by reasonable care.
2) The test would be very dangerous and unusual/eccentric activity (Non-natural)= Strictly Liable
a) I am a fumigator. (Highly dangerous, cannot be made safe by reasonable care, is unusual). Although many people get their homes fumigated, not everyone is a fumigator
a) The fumigator can be held to a strict liability standard
b) Aviation: subject to strict liability?
a) Used to be, but not really as much anymore
c) I am a blaster, blasting out a hole in a foundation.
a) Highly dangerous, cannot be made safe by reasonable care, therefore it is an unusual job.
