Strict Liability

Question 1

What is strict liability?

Answer 1

• D is liable for injuring P regardless of whether D exercised due care. P does not have to show proof of fault

Question 2

When does strict liability typically apply?

Answer 2

• Possession of animals
• Abnormally dangerous activities

Question 3

What is the wild animal rule?

Answer 3

• If D keeps a wild animal and P gets injured because it does something characteristic of that animal, keeper is strictly liable no matter how unforeseeable the harm.
  o EXAMPLE: Damian has a pet tiger. Damian’s pet tiger has always been gentle. However, one day when Preston is visiting, the tiger bites off his hand. No matter how unforeseeable, Damian is going to be held strictly liable for the harm to Preston

Question 4

What is the domestic pet rule?

Answer 4

• “Every dog gets one free bite.” Not liable unless D is on notice of danger.

Question 5

What constitutes an abnormally dangerous activity?

Answer 5

• An activity is abnormally dangerous when:
  o There is a high risk of serious harm to others;
  o D cannot engage in the activity without risk, and cannot eliminate the risk with care; and
  o It is not a commonly undertaken activity in the community.

Question 6

What are examples of abnormally dangerous activities?

Answer 6

• Blasting, explosives, or dangerous chemicals

Question 7

How can P recover if she suffered from an abnormally dangerous activity?

Answer 7

• P must be injured by the risk that makes the activity dangerous. If she does, then P can recover absent proof of fault as long as D was involved and the activity caused the harm.

Question 8

Can D raise contributory negligence as a defense to strict liability?

Answer 8

• D generally cannot raise this defense with strict liability.
• Exception: P knew of the danger that justified imposition of strict liability, and his action caused exactly that danger to manifest. Here, P could be said to have assumed the risk, and P is completely barred from recovery.
  o EXAMPLE: Pam is driving on the highway and she is listening to the radio when she sees a sign that says “Danger: Blasting—Radio signals can trigger an explosion. Turn off your radio” that Dynaco had posted. Pam did not turn off her radio. There is an explosion that causes injury to her, and she sues Dynaco in strict liability. Dynaco can assert a defense that she knew of the danger and chose to confront it, and therefore assumed the risk of injury. If Pam were speeding and did not see the sign, she gets full recovery because contributory negligence would not be a defense to strict liability.