Torts Learning Questions - Set 7 Flashcards
Depending on the circumstances, strict liability may be imposed on the owners of what type of animals?
A
Wild animals only
B
Wild animals and domestic animals, but not trespassing animals
C
Wild animals and trespassing animals, but not domestic animals
D
Wild animals, domestic animals, and trespassing animals
D
Depending on the circumstances, strict liability may be imposed on the owners of wild animals, domestic animals, and trespassing animals.
Unless an owner of wild animals can rely on a public duty exception (e.g., a zookeeper), the owner is strictly liable for injuries caused by the wild animals, even those kept as pets.
An owner is strictly liable for the damage done by the trespass of his animals (other than household pets) as long as the damage was reasonably foreseeable. It does not matter that the owner acted with reasonable care to keep them from trespassing.
Normally, the owner of a domestic animal is not strictly liable for injuries it causes. Strict liability will attach, however, if the owner knows of the domestic animal’s dangerous propensities (i.e., propensities more dangerous than normal for that species). This rule applies even if the animal has never injured anyone.
Which of the following is correct regarding strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities?
A
To be characterized as an abnormally dangerous activity, the activity must be considered abnormally dangerous in every community
B
Strict liability will arise for any type of harm caused by engaging in the abnormally dangerous activity
C
Whether an activity is abnormally dangerous is a question of fact for the jury to decide
D
To be abnormally dangerous, the activity must create a foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors
D
An activity may be characterized as abnormally dangerous if it creates a foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors.
Determining whether an activity is abnormally dangerous is NOT a question of fact for the jury to decide; rather, it is a question of law that the court can decide on a motion for a directed verdict.
It is incorrect that strict liability will arise from any type of harm caused by the activity. The harm must result from the kind of danger to be anticipated from the abnormally dangerous activity; i.e., it must flow from the “normally dangerous propensity” of the condition or thing involved.
It is also incorrect that the activity must be considered abnormally dangerous in every community. Courts generally impose a requirement that the activity must not be a matter of common usage in the community where it takes place. An activity may be considered abnormally dangerous in some areas but not in others.
The owner of an animal is strictly liable for damage caused by the animal if it __________.
A
attacks a trespasser
B
is a farm animal with dangerous propensities typical for that species
C
commits an unforeseeable trespass
D
is a dog with known dangerous propensities
D
The owner of a dog or other family pet with known dangerous propensities will be held strictly liable for damage caused by the animal. Normally, the owner of a domestic animal is not strictly liable for injuries it causes. Strict liability will attach, however, if the owner knows of the domestic animal’s dangerous propensities, i.e., propensities more dangerous than normal for that species. This rule applies even if the animal has never injured anyone.
If an animal commits an unforeseeable trespass, the owner of the animal will not be held strictly liable for damage caused by the animal. The owner is strictly liable for damage caused by the trespass of her animal only if it was reasonably foreseeable.
The owner of a farm animal with dangerous propensities typical for that species (such as bulls or bees) will not be held strictly liable for damage caused by the animal. Strict liability would apply only if the animal had propensities more dangerous than normal for that species.
If an animal attacks a trespasser, the owner will not be held strictly liable for damage caused by the animal. A trespasser cannot recover for injuries caused unless there was negligence on the part of the landowner, e.g., the landowner knew of the trespasser and failed to warn of a wild animal or abnormally dangerous domestic animal.
Which of the following will not negate a claim of strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity?
A
There was an unforeseeable intervening force.
B
The type of harm that occurred was not foreseeable.
C
The plaintiff was not foreseeable.
D
The defendant did not foresee a risk of harm.
D
The fact that the defendant did not foresee a risk of harm will not negate a claim of strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity. To prevail, a plaintiff need only show that a reasonable person could have foreseen the risk of harm, regardless of whether the defendant did not. If the plaintiff was not foreseeable, the strict liability claim is not established. The defendant's liability for an abnormally dangerous activity extends only to foreseeable plaintiffs, who are persons to whom a reasonable person would have foreseen a risk of harm under the circumstances. Note, though, that the nature of the abnormally dangerous activity may create a large class of foreseeable plaintiffs. If the type of harm was not foreseeable, the plaintiff cannot establish a strict liability claim. The harm must result from the kind of danger to be anticipated from the abnormally dangerous activity; i.e., it must flow from the "normally dangerous propensity" of the condition or thing involved. An unforeseeable intervening force may allow a defendant to avoid liability in a strict liability action for an abnormally dangerous activity. The same rules govern causation for strict liability as they do for negligence, and thus a defendant's liability may be cut off by an unforeseeable intervening force that brings about the injury.
A truck transporting explosives went out of control when a tire suddenly blew. The truck struck a motorist’s car as it was waiting at a stoplight, seriously injuring the motorist. The area around the accident was immediately evacuated, but fortunately the explosives were not detonated.
In an action alleging strict liability against the freight carrier that owned the truck, the motorist established the above facts and presented evidence of her injuries. The carrier presented evidence that the blowout was caused by a hidden defect in the tire that could not be detected by routine inspection. The tires were manufactured by the carrier’s regular supplier and had not previously caused any problems. The carrier also presented evidence that the local authorities were supposed to restrict access to roads along the truck’s route but had failed to do so.
In this action, is the motorist likely to prevail?
A Yes, because the tire was in a defective condition that made it unreasonably dangerous.
B Yes, because the freight carrier was engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity.
C No, because the injury did not arise from the dangerous propensity of the activity.
D No, because the negligence of the local authorities in failing to restrict access to roads along the truck’s route was a superseding cause of the motorist’s injuries.
C
The motorist is not likely to prevail in a strict liability action because her injury did not arise from the abnormally dangerous propensity of the freight carrier’s activity. The carrier’s transport of explosives likely qualifies as an abnormally dangerous activity because: (i) it creates a foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors; and (ii) the activity is not a matter of common usage in the community. However, the scope of liability extends only to the dangers that would be anticipated from the activity involved; strict liability does not apply to harms that were not caused by the normally dangerous propensity of the activity. Here, the carrier’s activity is subject to strict liability because of the danger of explosion from the truck’s cargo, but not from a crash by itself. Because the motorist’s injuries were not caused by an explosion, strict liability does not apply. The carrier would be liable for the injuries from the crash only if the motorist established negligence. (A) is incorrect because it states the standard for strict liability for defective products, which requires that the defendant be a commercial supplier of the defective product, i.e., someone in the chain of distribution of the product. Here, the carrier is not a commercial supplier of the tire that failed; rather, it is the purchaser or consumer of the tire. (B) is incorrect because, as discussed above, strict liability does not apply to the harm that occurred here. (D) is incorrect. It is questionable whether the negligence by the local authorities could be considered an intervening force, which must come into play after the culpable conduct by the defendant. Even if it were an intervening force, it likely would not be considered so extraordinary as to be an unforeseeable intervening force. Hence, it would not constitute a superseding force that would break the causal connection between the motorist’s injury and the carrier’s actions.
A man boarded a plane with his pet rattlesnake hidden in his carry-on bag. The man was not aware that the carry-on bag, which he put under the seat in front of him, had a defective zipper. The snake, which had no teeth or venom and was harmless, escaped from the bag and started slithering down the aisle while the man was using the lavatory. A woman who had just gotten up from her seat saw the snake heading towards her and tried to run in the other direction. She tripped over someone’s foot and broke her ankle.
If the woman sues the man on a theory of strict liability for her broken ankle, will she prevail?
A
No, because the snake was in fact a nondangerous animal.
B
No, because the injury she suffered was not caused by the dangerous propensity of a snake.
C
Yes, because the snake is a wild animal.
D
Yes, because it is not a common activity to bring snakes on a plane.
C
The woman will prevail because the rattlesnake is classified as a wild animal. An owner of a wild (i.e., nondomestic) animal, even one kept as a pet, will be strictly liable for the damage caused by the animal. A rattlesnake, even a harmless one, will be classified as a wild animal. Therefore (C) is correct and (A) is wrong. (B) is wrong because the injury the woman suffered was within the “normal dangerous propensity” of the animal. Strict liability for wild animals includes liability for the harm that results when a person is attempting to flee from what is perceived to be a dangerous animal. (D) is wrong. The fact that the activity was uncommon in the locale would have some relevance if the lawsuit were based on a theory of strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity. It has nothing to do with strict liability for damage caused by animals.
The driver of a tanker truck was transporting radioactive waste from a nuclear power plant to a permanent storage facility in a remote western region of the United States. After driving all night, the driver fell asleep at the wheel and the truck crossed over the center line, off the road, and onto a homeowner’s property, coming to rest after crashing into several glass cases containing the homeowner’s collection of poisonous snakes, the keeping of which was permitted by local ordinance. When the driver exited the truck, he was bitten on the leg by one of the poisonous snakes and became seriously ill.
The driver brought an action against the homeowner for his injuries. The parties stipulated to the above facts, and that the driver violated a state statute by driving off of the road. Both parties moved for judgment as a matter of law on the liability issue.
How should the court rule?
A Grant the driver’s motion and deny the homeowner’s motion, because the homeowner is strictly liable for the injury caused by the snake.
B Deny the driver’s motion and grant the homeowner’s motion, because the driver was a trespasser on the homeowner’s property.
C Deny the driver’s motion and grant the homeowner’s motion, because the driver’s violation of the state statute establishes contributory negligence as a matter of law.
D Deny both parties’ motions, because both parties were engaged in an activity for which strict liability is imposed.
B
The court should grant the homeowner’s motion for judgment as a matter of law because the driver has not established a prima facie case against the homeowner. An owner of wild (dangerous) animals is strictly liable for injuries caused by those animals as long as the person injured did nothing, voluntarily or consciously, to bring about the injury. However, strict liability generally is not imposed in favor of undiscovered trespassers against landowners in the absence of negligence, such as when the landowner knows that the trespassers are on the land and fails to warn them of the animal. Here, despite the fact that the driver did not intend to enter the homeowner’s land (and thus would not be liable for the intentional tort of trespass), his status on the homeowner’s land is that of a trespasser rather than a licensee or invitee. The driver has presented no evidence of negligence on the homeowner’s part and therefore has not established a prima facie case against the homeowner. (A) is wrong because, as discussed above, the homeowner is not strictly liable to the driver because the driver was a trespasser. (C) is incorrect because the driver will not prevail regardless of whether he was contributorily negligent, because he cannot establish a prima facie case against the homeowner in either negligence or strict liability. (D) is incorrect for several reasons: While the driver’s transport of radioactive waste may have been an abnormally dangerous activity, that danger had nothing to do with the accident that occurred. Furthermore, the fact that the driver may have been engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity would not prevent him from recovering damages from another tortfeasor if he established the requisite prima facie case. Finally, the fact that the parties were engaged in activities potentially creating strict liability has nothing to do with whether issues of fact regarding liability still exist that would require denying both motions and going to trial.
A bolt of lightning struck a tree, causing it to fall on a farmer’s fence which enclosed a pasture containing the farmer’s large bull. The bull escaped through the broken fence and entered the neighbor’s property. It gored a hiker who was crossing the neighbor’s property without permission.
In the hiker’s action against the farmer based on strict liability, is the hiker likely to prevail?
A Yes, because the bull caused harm while trespassing on another’s property.
B Yes, because bulls have known dangerous propensities.
C No, because a bull is a domestic animal.
D No, because the hiker was a trespasser.
C
The hiker will not prevail because strict liability does not apply to a bull, which is a domestic animal. The owner of a domestic animal, including a farm animal, is not strictly liable for injuries it causes, as long as the owner has no knowledge that the animal has abnormally dangerous propensities (i.e., propensities more dangerous than normal for that species). A bull is a domestic animal, and nothing in the facts suggests that the bull was more dangerous than normal for that type of animal. Hence, strict liability will not apply. (A) is incorrect because the rule for trespassing animals does not apply. The owner of a trespassing animal is strictly liable for harm done by the trespass as long as it was reasonably foreseeable. Here, the bolt of lightning caused the fence to break and allowed the bull to escape. This unforeseeable intervening force was the cause of the trespass; hence, the strict liability rule for trespassing animals does not apply here. (B) is incorrect because, as discussed above, strict liability does not apply for domestic animals with normal dangerous propensities. Only domestic animals with propensities more dangerous than normal for the species may subject the owner to strict liability. (D) is incorrect because the hiker’s status as a trespasser on the neighbor’s land is irrelevant as to the farmer’s liability. If the hiker were a trespasser on the farmer’s land, strict liability would not apply even if the bull were abnormally dangerous, but the farmer’s liability is not affected by the hiker’s status as to the neighbor. Note that if strict liability applied for harm from an animal trespassing on a neighbor’s property, the hiker’s status as a trespasser might be relevant because strict liability applies only to injured persons who were rightfully on the property. However, as discussed above in (A), that liability is inapplicable here because the bull’s trespass was unforeseeable.
