“STRICT LIABILITY”CAUSES OF ACTION Flashcards
Liability of Possessor of Wild Animal
1 A possessor of a wild animal is subject to liability to another for harm done by the animal to the other, his person, land or chattels, although the possessor has exercised the utmost care to confine the animal, or otherwise prevent it from doing harm.
2 This liability is limited to harm that results from a dangerous propensity that is characteristic of wild animals of the particular class, or of which the possessor knows or has reason to know.
Liability for Harm Done by Domestic Animalsthat are not Abnormally Dangerous
Except for animal trespass, one who possesses or harbors a domestic animal that he does not know or have reason to know to be abnormally dangerous, is subject to liability for harm done by the animal if, but only if,
A he intentionally causes the animal to do the harm, or
B he is negligent in failing to prevent the harm.
Wild Animal and Domestic Animal Defined
1 A wild animal [an animal ferae naturae]… is an animal that is not by custom devoted to the service of mankind at the time and in the place in which it is kept.
2 A domestic animal [an animal mansuete naturae]… is an animal that is by custom devoted to the service of mankind at the time and in the place in which it is kept.
Harm Done by Abnormally Dangerous Domestic Animals
1 A possessor of a domestic animal that he knows or has reason to know has dangerous propensities abnormal to its class, is subject to liability for harm done by the animal to another, although he has exercised the utmost care to prevent it from doing the harm.
2 This liability is limited to harm that results from the abnormally dangerous propensity of which the possessor knows or has reason to know.
Animals Kept in Pursuance of a Public Duty
The rules as to strict liability for dangerous animals do not apply when the possession of the animal is in pursuance of a duty imposed upon the possessor as a public officer or employee [ the “zoo exception”] or as a common carrier.
Liability to Trespassers
A possessor of land is not subject to strict liability to one who intentionally or negligently trespasses upon the land, for harm done to him by a wild animal or an abnormally dangerous domestic animal that the possessor keeps on the land, even though the trespasser has no reason to know that the animal is kept there.
Harm Done by Indigenous AnimalAfter Its Escape
A possessor of a wild animal indigenous to the locality in which it is kept is not liable for harm done by it after it has gone out of his possession and returned to its natural state as a wild animal indigenous to the locality.
Effect of Contributing Actions of Third Persons, Animals and Forces of Nature
The possessor of a wild animal or an abnormally dangerous domestic animal is subject to strict liability for the resulting harm, although it would not have occurred but for the unexpectable
A innocent, negligent or reckless conduct of a third person, or
B action of another animal, or
C operation of a force of nature.
Plaintiff’s Conduct
1 Except as stated in 2), the contributory negligence of the plaintiff is not a defense to the strict liability of the possessor of an animal.
2 The plaintiff’s contributory negligence in knowingly and unreasonably subjecting himself to the risk that a wild animal or an abnormally dangerous domestic animal will do harm to his person, land or chattels, is a defense to the strict liability.
3 The plaintiff’s [“genuine”] assumption of the risk of harm [knowingly and reasonably subjecting himself to the risk] from the animal is a defense to the strict liability.
Liability for Trespass by Livestock
1 Except as stated in 3) and 4) [plaintiffs who fail to erect and maintain fences required by law], a possessor of livestock intruding upon the land of another is subject to liability for the intrusion although he has exercised the utmost care to prevent them from intruding.
2 The liability stated in 1) extends to any harm to the land or to its possessor or a member of his household, or their chattels, which might reasonably be expected to result from the intrusion of livestock.
3 The liability stated in 1) does not extend to harm
A done by animals straying onto abutting land while driven on the highway; or
B not reasonably to be expected from the intrusion;
C brought about by the unexpectable operation of a force of nature, action of another animal or intentional, reckless or negligent conduct of a third person.
Abnormally Dangerous Activities
1 One who carries on “an abnormally dangerous activity” is subject to liability for harm to the person, land or chattels of another resulting from the activity, although he has exercised the utmost care to prevent the harm.
2 This strict liability is limited to the kind of harm, the possibility of which makes the activity abnormally dangerous.
Factors Determining Abnormally Dangerous Activities
A existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land or chattels of others;
B likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great;
C inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care;
D extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage;
E inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on; and
F extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes.
Contributing Actions of Third Persons, Animals and Forces of Nature
A innocent, negligent or reckless conduct of a third person, or
B action of an animal, or
C operation of a force of nature
Assumption of Risk
The plaintiff’s [“genuine”] assumption of risk [voluntarily, knowingly and reasonably encountering the risk] of harm from an abnormally dangerous activity bars his recovery for the harm
Contributory Negligence
1 Except as stated in 2), the contributory negligence of the plaintiff is not a defense to the strict liability of one who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity.
2 The plaintiff’s contributory negligence in knowingly and unreasonably subjecting himself to the risk of harm from the activity is a defense to the strict liability.
