Strict Liability Torts

Question 1

Brown v. Kendall

Answer 1

D accidentally hit P in the eye with a stick as he was trying to break up a fight between two dogs -
the court essentially ruled that, in general, negligence, and not strict liability, will govern personal injury claims. - standard of care is “the kind and degree of care, which prudent and cautious men would use, such as is required by the exigency of the case, and such as necessary to guard against probable danger.”

Question 2

New York Central Railroad v. White

Answer 2

Law established a regime of strict liability for workplace injuries while removing such claims from traditional common law courts and placing them into a specialized quasi-judicial forum.

Question 3

Trespass to land elements (2)

Answer 3

1. D intentionally invades or occupies land
2. P owns or possesses the land

Question 4

Trespass to land cases (4)

Answer 4

1. Burns v. Cavalea (fence)
2. Ploof v. Putnam (necessity boat dock)
3. Vincent v. Lake Erie (necessity boat dock)
4. Copeland v. Hubbard (consent defense - journalism)

Question 5

Burns v. Cavalea

Answer 5

D built a fence on property based off of a false survey that miscalculated where his property line was and it was on P’s property. Held that it was trespassing

Question 6

Ploof v. Putnam

Answer 6

P docked their boat carrying goods and their family on D’s dock during a storm. D untied boat claiming trespass - P’s trespass was justified by necessity

Question 7

Vincent v. Lake Erie

Answer 7

D docked boat on P’s dock causing damages. Were liable for the damages but trespass was justified by necessity

Question 8

Copeland v. Hubbard

Answer 8

D conducted undercover research on P who was a vet including journal entry obtained by false pretenses. P consented to only educational purposes, therefore consent did not justify the trespass

Question 9

Trespass Restatements (2)

Answer 9

159 - trespass may be committed on, beneath, or above surface of the earth

158 - trespass is a strict liability tort and there is no obligation to inform

Question 10

Conversion & Restatement

Answer 10

• 222A: an intentional act of dominion or control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel
• All that is necessary is the intent to exert control over the chattel; the intent to take control

Question 11

Conversion Case

Answer 11

Thyroff v. Nationwide: after P’s termination from company, D repossessed his computer system containing personal information and refused access to P. Conversion applies to computers

Question 12

Trespass to Chattel

Answer 12

• Covers lesser interferences with the rights of owners to use and enjoy their goods, including acts that damage personal property
  ex: keying somebody’s car, using car and returning without permission
• ALL that is required is the intentional act, even if there was no intent to hurt the property

Question 13

Nuisance Elements (2)

Answer 13

1. P has a possessory interest in the land
2. D caused a substantial and unreasonable interference with P’s use and enjoyment of the land

Question 14

Nuisance cases (2)

Answer 14

Sturges v. Bridgman (coming to the nuisance) - P who is a doctor extended his home to include a room for consulting which was against D’s wall where he runs a confectioner business which was noisy and interfered with P’s interest - held for P

Penland v. Redwood Sanitary - P sued to abate odors from D’s business - held for P

Question 15

Nuisance Restatement

Answer 15

840(D)- the timing of the plaintiff’s decision to improve property is a factor of importance in determining whether there is an actionable tort

Question 16

Abnormally Dangerous Activities

Answer 16

any party carrying on an “abnormally dangerous” activity is strictly liable for ensuing damages.

Question 17

Abnormally dangerous activities Restatements (3)

Answer 17

519 - adopts Rylands and states that any party carrying on an “abnormally dangerous” activity is strictly liable for ensuing damages.

520: sets forth the factors to consider in evaluating a claim:
high degree of risk; likelihood of high degree of harm; inability to eliminate risk by reasonable care; extent to which activity is not a matter of common usage; inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on; and
the extent to which the benefit of the activity outweighs its dangerous attributes.

522: One carrying on an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to strict liability for the resulting harm although it is caused by the unexpected innocent, negligent, or reckless conduct of a third person.

Question 18

Abnormally Dangerous Activities Cases (3)

Answer 18

1. Pingaro v. Rossi (dog)
2. Rylands v. Fletcher (flood)
3. Klein v. Pyrodyne Corp (fireworks)

Question 19

Pingaro v. Rossi

Answer 19

P was attacked by dog while reading gas meter - NJ dog bite statute - usually refer to common law reasonable person standards to evaluate dog bite claims

Question 20

Rylands v. Fletcher

Answer 20

D’s reservoir collapsed and flooded P’s mine - one is liable damages for bringing onto one’s property something that can do mischief if it escapes and it escapes - held for damages

Question 21

Klein v. Pyrodyne Corp

Answer 21

fireworks shell exploded and was discharged and injured P. factors to consider were present - pyrotechnic displays are an abnormally dangerous activity - defense: negligent manufacture