Strict Liability Rest. 2nd Flashcards
Liability of Possessor of wild animals
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 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 animals that are not abnormally dangerous
Except for animal trespass, one who possesses or harbors a domestic animal that he doesn’t 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
WIle and Domestic Animals Defined
Wild animal=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
Domestic animal= 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 Animal
(1) A possessor of a domestic animal that he knows or has reason to know has dangerous propensities abnormal to its class, s 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 danergous propensity of which the
General Principle (abnormally dangerous activities)
- 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
- THis strict is limited to the kind of harm, the possibility of which makes the activity abnormally dangerous
Abnormally Dangerous Activities
-In determining whether an activity is abnormally dangerous, the following factors are to be considered:
(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 outweigh by its dangerous attributes
Contributing Actions of Third Persons, Animals and Forces of Nature
-One carrying on an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to strict liability for the resulting harm although it is caused by the unexpectable:
(a) Innocent, negligent or reckless conduct of a third person, or
(b) Action of an animal, or
(c)Operation of a force of nature
Plaintiff’s abnormally sensitive activity
there is no strict liability for harm causes by an abnormally dangerous activity if the harm would not have resulted but for the abnormally sensitive character of the plaintiff’s activity
General Rule (Nuisance)
one is subject to liability for a private nuisance if, but only if, his conduct is a legal causes of an invasion of another’s (legally protected but non-exclusive) interest in the private use and enjoyment of land, and the invasion is either
A) intentional and unreasonable, or
B) unintentional and otherwise actionable under the rules controlling liability for negligent or reckless conduct or for abnormally dangerous conditions or activities
Rest. 2nd. Intentional Invasion
An invasion of another’s interest in theu sue and enjoyment of land or an interference with the public right, is intentional if the actor
a) acts for th purpose of causing it, or
b) knows that it is resulting or is substantially certain to result from his conduct
Rest. 2nd. Unreasonableness of Intentional Invasion
An invasion of another’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land is unreasonable if:
a) the gravity of the harm outweighs the utility of the actor’s conduct, or
b) the harm caused by the conduct is serious and the financial burden of compensating for this and similar harm to others would not make the continuation of the conduct not feasible (financial feasibility)
Rest. 2nd Gravity of Harm- Factors involved (Nuisance)
In determining the gravity of the harm from an intentional invasion of another’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land, the following factors are important:
a) the extent of the harm involved;
b) the character of the harm involved;
c) the social value that the law attaches to the type of use or enjoyment invaded;
d) the suitability of the particular use or enjoyment invaded to the character of the locality; and
e) the burden of the person harmed of avoiding the harm
Rest. 2nd. Utility of Conduct- Factors involved (Nuisance)
in determining the utility of conduct that causes an intentional invasion of another’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land, the following factors are important:
a) the social value that the law attaches to the primary purpose of the conduct;
b) the suitability of the conduct to the character of the locality; and
c) the impracticability of preventing or avoiding the invasion
Rest. 2nd. Gravity vs Utility- Conduct Malicious or Indecent (Nuisance)
An intentional invasion of another’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land is unreasonable if the harm is significant and the actor’s conduct is:
a) for the sole purpose of causing harm to the other; or
b) contrary to common standards of decency
Rest 2ndGravitiy vs Utility- Conduct unsuited to locality (Nuisance)
An intentional invasion of another’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land is unreasonable if the harm is significant and
a) the particular use or enjoyment interfered with is well suited to the character of the locality; and
b) the actor’s conduct is unsuited to the character of that locality
