Torts Flashcards
strict liability prima facie case
- the nature of the defendant’s activity imposes an absolute duty to make safe
- the dangerous aspect of the activity is the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury and
- the plaintiff suffered damage to person or property
liability for trespassing animals
the owner is STRICTLY LIABLE for the damage done by the trespass of is animals (other than household pets) as long as it was reasonably foreseeable
liability for wild animals
STRICT LIABILITY
- the owner is strictly liable for injuries cause by wild animals, even those kept as pets
liability for domestic animals
- -knowledge requirement
- -the owner of a domestic animal (including farm animals) is NOT strictly liable for injuries it causes UNLESS the owner has KNOWLEDGE of that particular animal’s dangerous propensities
– rule applies even if the animal has never actually injured anyone
Can trespassers claim strict liability against a landowner for their wild animals?
NO
- undiscovered trespassers cannot recover for injuries inflicted by the landowner’s wild animals or abnormally dangerous domestic animals in the absence of negligence
- -ex: landowner knows the trespasser is on the land and fails to warn them about the animal
What if a landowner keeps a vicious watchdog?
a landowner who protects his property from intruders by keeping a vicious watchdog that he knows is likely to cause serious bodily harm MAY BE LIABLE EVEN TO TRESPASSERS for injuries caused by the animal
– cannot use deadly force to protect your property
abnormally dangerous activity
an activity may be characterized as abnormally dangerous if:
1) it involves a substantial risk of foreseeable serious harm to person or property even when reasonable care is exercise
AND
2) the activity is not a matter of common usage in the community
- ->must be foreseeable plaintiff
- -> harm must result from the kind of danger to be anticipated from the dangerous activity (aka– it must flow from the normally dangerous propensity of the condition or thing)
is contributory negligence available as a defense for abnormally dangerous activities?
- typically no
- -BUT…only where the plaintiff KNEW of the danger and his unreasonable conduct was the very cause of the harm from the abnormally dangerous activity
Private Nuisance
a substantial, unreasonable interference with another private individual’s use or enjoyment of land he actually possesses or to which has has a right of immediate possession
- substantial = must be offensive, inconvenient, or annoying to an average person in the community (cannot be because of plaintiff’s hypersensitivity or specialized use of his own property)
- unreasonable = the severity of the inflicted injury must outweigh the utility of the defendant’s conduct
public nuisance
an act that unreasonably interferes with the health, safety or property rights of the community
–recovery is available here only if the private party has suffered some unique damage not suffered by the public at large
abatement of private nuisance
“self-help abatement”
one has the privilege to enter upon the defendant’s land and personally abate the nuance after NOTICE to the defendant and defendant’s REFUSAL TO ACT
- forced used must be that only reasonable to accomplish the abatement
- -plaintiff is liable for additional harm done
abatement of public nuisance
- if one has suffered a unique harm, one has the privilege of self- help abatement (same as private nuisance)
- otherwise, a public nuisance may be abated or enjoined by public authority
“coming to the nuisance”
– in the absence of a prescriptive right, the defendant may not condemn the surrounding premises to endure the nuisance– the purchaser is entitled to reasonable use or enjoyment of his land to the same extent as any other owner as long as he buys in good Fatih and not for the sole purpose of a harassing lawsuit
Respondeat superior
“vicarious liability”
-a master/employer will be vicariously liable for tortious acts committed by her servant/employee if the tortuous acts occur within the scope of the employment relationship
-“frolic and detour”– employer will not be liable is tortious act occurred while the employee was on a “frolic” of his own
will employers be vicariously liable for the intentional tortious conduct by their employees?
not usually found to be within the scope of the employment
- -in circumstances below, however, it WILL be found to be within the scope of employment:
1) force is authorized in the employment (a bouncer)
2) friction is generated by the employment (a bill collector)
3) the employee is furthering the business of the employer (removing customers from the premises because they are rowdy)
–BUT.. can be held liable for own negligence in selecting and supervising the employee
