Strict Liability

Question 1

Animals - Trespassing livestock – RS §504

Answer 1

1. The possessor of livestock is strictly liable for the trespass itself and any harm done
2. Fencing in v. fencing out
   
   1. Fencing in: if you own animals, you are responsible for fencing in your animals to keep them on your land
   2. Fencing out: if you have a farm in the middle of a grazing zone, you are responsible to construct a fence protecting your farm from the grazing cattle

Question 2

Animals - Domestic animals – RS §509

Answer 2

1. With known dangerous propensities
   
   1. Possessor is strictly liable for all harm done as a result of that dangerous propensity
   2. If domestic animal is of a class that normally has dangerous propensities, possessor is not strictly liable for injuries caused by the normal dangerous propensity
      
      1. Vicious: whether the animal has a dangerous propensity abnormal to its clause”
2. Without known dangerous propensities
   
   1. Possessor generally is not strictly liable
   2. Some states hold possessor liable for all dog bites even if there was no prior knowledge of the propensity to bite

Question 3

Animals - Wild animals – RS §507

Answer 3

1. Possessor is liable for harm done as a result of animal’s normally dangerous propensity
2. Where the wild animal is kept under public duty, strict liability does not apply
   
   1. P must show negligence, but D is held to a high amount of care

Question 4

Animals - Persons protected where injury occurs on D’s premises

Answer 4

1. Invitees and licensees are protected
2. A trespasser whose presence is not known or anticipated is ordinarily not protected
3. Landowner must warn of vicious watchdogs

Question 5

Abnormally Dangerous Activities – RS §519: definition

Answer 5

One who maintains an abnormally dangerous condition on his premises or engages in an activity presenting an unavoidable risk of harm to others may be liable for harm caused even though reasonable care was exercised.

Question 6

Abnormanlly Dangerous Activities - Scope of the duty owed

Answer 6

1. An absolute duty is owed to make safe abnormally dangerous activities
2. The duty is owed only to foreseeable P’s and only for harm that flows from the normally dangerous propensity of the condition or activity involved (Foster v. Preston Mill Co.)

Question 7

Abnormally Dangerous Activities – RS §519: Origin

Answer 7

1. A force, brought by D onto his land, that involved a “non-natural” use of the land and was likely to cause substantial damage if it escaped would render D strictly liable if it escaped and did harm
   
   1. To determine what is “non-natural,” must look at the place and manner of the activity in relation to its surroundings
   2. Rule only applies when something escaped from D’s land, not when damage was done on D’s land (FN: Read v. J. Lyons)

Question 8

Abnormally Dangerous Activities – RS §519: “Ultrahazardous” activity (First Restatement)

Answer 8

1. Ultrahazardous activity is any activity necessarily involving a risk of serious harm to others such that it cannot be eliminated by utmost care and which is not a matter of common usage
2. Does not take into consideration the location of the danger

Question 9

“Abnormally dangerous” activity – RS §520: 6 factors

Answer 9

1. Whether activity involves high degree of risk
2. Gravity of risk
3. Whether risk can be eliminated by exercise of reasonable care
4. Whether activity is a matter of common usage
   
   1. Social utility outweighs inherent risk
5. Whether activity is appropriate to the locale
6. Value of the activity to community

Question 10

Abnormally Dangerous Activities : Additonal Info

Answer 10

1. Applying a strict liability standard to an activity will result in the death of that industry (Indiana Harbor Belt RR v. American Cyanamid)
2. Examples of abnormally dangerous activities (location determines whether strict liability or negligence):
   
   1. Transportation/store of toxic chemicals
   2. Pile driving
   3. Crop dusting
   4. Fumigation with toxic gases
   5. Testing of rockets
   6. Fireworks displays
   7. Plutonium production facility
   8. Hazardous waste disposal sites
   9. Operation of oil wells
   10. Storage of large quantities of water/liquids

Question 11

Defenses: Contributory negligence – RS §524 (Sandy v. Bushey)

Answer 11

1. P knowingly and unreasonably subjected himself to the risk of harm from the activity
2. This is no defense unless P knew of danger and negligently caused the activity to miscarry
3. An absolute defense – D has no liability
4. Eventually replaced by comparative negligence

Question 12

Defenses: Comparative negligence

Answer 12

1. Reduces damages based on P’s percent of fault
2. This reduces recovery in most comparative negligence jurisdictions

Question 13

Defenses: Assumption of risk – RS §523

Answer 13

1. The voluntary encountering of a known risk may prevent P’s recovery
2. Consent to risk is implied to bar strict liability where D acted for P’s benefit

Question 14

Defenses: Contributing actions of third persons or forces of nature – RS §522

Answer 14

1. Acts of God (Golden v. Amory)
   
   1. Strict liability does not apply where the injury results from “an act of God” which the owner had no reason to anticipate
   2. Could be found liable for acts of God if the events are foreseeable
2. Acts of a third party (FN: Rickards v. Lothian)
   
   1. The act of a third party over whom D has no control cannot give rise to liability even where D’s activity is subject to strict liability