Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/8

Click to flip

8 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Fault
-StrictL - liability without fault
-Negligence - must establish fault first
Severity & Consequences
*StrictL - more severe, may over-deter conduct of this sort (even if not all that dangerous), narrow range of consequences though

*Negligence - less severe, may under-deter dangerous conduct, wide range of consequences
Manner of harm must be foreseeable?
*StrictL - manner of harm required to be foreseeable

*Negligence - manner of harm NOT needed to be foreseeable
Contributory/Comparative Negligence
*StrictL - not a bar/reduction to recovery

*Negligence - can bar/reduce recovery
Assumption of Risk
*StrictL - still a valid defense

*Negligence - not really used; incorporated into cont./comp. negligence concepts
Strict Liability:
is activity "abnormally dangerous?"
-6 factor test
1. high degree of risk
2. likelihood harm will be great (i.e. great consequences)
3. inability to eliminate risk by exercise of due care
4. extent to which activity is not common usage
5. inappropriateness to place where activity is carried out
6. extent to which community is hurt by risky attributes
Strict Liability - Defenses
- harm that occurred was not the kind that made activity "abnormally dangerous"
- P was undertaking exctraordinary or unusual activity
- manner of harm was unforeseeable
- unforeseeable intervening act = superseding act
- act of God (2RS rejects this view)
- assumption of risk by P
Strict Liability
- common areas where it is imposed
- main policy consideration
*storage of explosives
*crop dusting
*airplane accidents
*storage/transport of toxic chemicals, flammable liquids, etc.

*imposing strictL consistent with policy? necessary? would ordinary neg. suffice? will strictL over-deter? what is cost to society from imposing strictL?