Strict Liability - Dangerous Activity

Question 1

Activities Usually Considered Dangerous

Answer 1

• handling poisonous or toxic materials (fumigating, crop dusting, disposal of hazardous waste)
• explosive or flammable agencies (blasting, storing explosives, hauling gasoline)
• note though that strict liability attaches to activities, not substances

Question 2

Rylands v. Fletcher

Answer 2

• one who for his own purposes brings on his lands anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, does so at his peril
• if it escapes, he is strictly liable for all of the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape

Question 3

Classical Period vs. Modern Period

Answer 3

• classical period exhibited general aversion to Rylands rule, vs. modern period shows increasing acceptance of Rylands and strict liability

Question 4

Contributory Negligence and Strict Liability

Answer 4

• some states hold that contributory negligence is NOT a defense to strict liability (assumption of risk might be, as it requires knowledge, whereas c-neg does not imply party knew of the risk
• other states do allow pl’s risky conduct to influence damage award in strict liability case
• q becomes how you compare strict liability of def with fault of pl (legal cause analysis)

Question 5

Rationale for Strict Liability of Abnormally Dangerous Activities

Answer 5

• justice/fairness - he who acts should pay
• problem: burdens socially useful activities w/ expenses -> counterarg: if the activity can’t bear the burden of strict liability, it’s not socially useful enough

Question 6

Marshall v. Ranne

Answer 6

• case w/ the pl attacked by def’s boar
• animals as abnormally dangerous (if you have an abnormally dangerous animal, you’re responsible for what it does)
• says c-neg NOT a defense to strict liability, but assumption of risk would be (note that jurisdictions come out differently on this - Andrade says it is a defense)

Question 7

Exner v. Sherman Power Construction Co. - Facts

Answer 7

• defs in business of building a dam (construction project that requires blasting) -> storing dynamite w/in fifty rods of residential areas (violation of VT statute)
• there’s an explosion

Question 8

Exner - Holding + Reasoning

Answer 8

• basically, court doesn’t actually find fault w/ def’s conduct, + not negligence per se b/c pl’s home wasn’t w/in fifty rods
• BUT defs should pay anyway - strict liability is appropriate in cases of inherently dangerous activity (“use of dynamite is so dangerous that it ought to be at owners’ risk”)

Question 9

Terminological Distinction - Abnormally Dangerous vs. Inherently Dangerous

Answer 9

• legal category of “abnormally dangerous activity” applies in instances of strict liability
• vs. “inherently dangerous activity” features in vicarious liability

Question 10

Strict Liability - Steps for Analysis

Answer 10

• KEEP IN MIND STILL NEED LEGAL CAUSE

Still dealing w/ our three phases:

• look to def’s conduct to see if strict liability
• look to pl’s conduct to see if assumption of risk might apply
• look to causation

Question 11

Restatement (2d) Section 519 - General Idea of Strict Liability

Answer 11

• one who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to liability for any resulting injuries even if the utmost care is taken to prevent injuries
• BUT strict liability is limited to particular harms, the possibility of which makes the activity so dangerous (requires foresight analysis)
• def’s enterprise required to pay for its harms b/c of its special, abnormal, + dangerous character

Question 12

Restatement (2d) - Factors to Consider in Evaluating Whether Activity Abnormally Dangerous

Answer 12

Degree of danger:

• existence of high degree of risk of harm
• likelihood that the harm will be great (this interacts w/ first one - can be abnormally dangerous even if low risk if harm sufficiently great, ie nuclear meltdown)
• inability to eliminate risk w/ exercise of reasonable care

Abnormality (less important)

• extent to which the activity is a matter of common usage (common if activity is carried on by great mass of mankind or many in the community)
• inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it’s carried on
• extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous activities

Question 13

Restatement (2d) - Value to Community

Answer 13

• if activity involves serious risk that can’t be eliminated through reasonable care, may still be evaluated as NOT abnormally dangerous if sufficiently valuable to the community
• ie. applies if community is largely devoted to the enterprise and its prosperity as a whole depends on it - book distinguished properly conducted oil/gas wells in rural TX + OK

Question 14

Common Usage

Answer 14

• cars vs. explosives - cars count as common usage b/c most people use them, whereas explosives commonly done but not actually carried on by great mass of mankind (carried out by comparatively small # of people)

Question 15

Abnormally Dangerous Activity - Defenses

Answer 15

• contributory negligence normally not a defense
• assumption of risk is a defense, but not where def’s conduct leaves pl no reasonable alternative to avert harm or exercise legal right

Question 16

Siegler v. Kuhlman

Answer 16

• 1972
• pl’s daughter killed after gasoline being hauled in freight spilled on highway + caused fire
• def tried to show no negligence in maintaining + inspecting the truck
• strict liability imposed on def - transporting gasoline as freight by truck along public highways = abnormally dangerous activity

Question 17

Siegler v. Kuhlman - Policy Rationale

Answer 17

• proof likely to be destroyed in the harm (strict liability solves evidentiary problem)
• high degree of risk of great harm + injury (hazards of high speed traffic multiplied by danger in inherently volatile + explosive nature of substance + multiplied by size and quantity of load)
• Calabresi (think applied in class but not cited)- spreading, market allocation, background safety