Torts Ii

Front 1

Strict Liability:

Back 1

 Already have SL under VL
 Have SL in Workers compensation
 SL is liability in the absence of negligence is liability in the absence of real fault, it is unfair on its face
 What are we trying to accomplish when we impose SL? When you use SL you need to put it in context. Imposing a liability in the absence of negligence.
• When the D has been involved in ab dangerous activities OR owns an abnormally dangerous animal

Front 2

Strict Liability:

Animals

Back 2

what does the court say about you owning this animal when we impose strick L, perhaps disincentive and control to this animal. We do so when we impose strick liability. We need to buy insurance. There are messages that are being sent. With regard to animals we don’t impose unless owner has notice of the danger propensities of the animals. Sometimes they are obvious. You will be held strictly liable when that animal attacks.
• One BITE RULE- focuses on the Notice, when the owner claims that I did not know this animal was dangerous until the first bite. Well if the first bite was for an animal and the animal had no right to know there was no liability and there was no notice. If the owner knew that the animal was dangerous before the first bite, the first bite will lead to the imposition of SL

Front 3

Abnormally Dangerous Activities:

Rylands v. Fletcher

Back 3

The man had a huge body of water on his land and it spread and injured his neighbor. The rationale appeared to limit liability to activities on land of the D that injure land of an abutter. The spirit of this case it to impose a Sl on those who like tiger keepers impose grave and truly unusual risks on the community

Front 4

Abnormally Dangerous Activities:

Today's current Doctrine

Back 4

One who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to liability for harm to the person, land or chattels of another resulting from the activity, althought he has exercised the utmost care to prevent the harm.

Front 5

Abnormal Danger: "Inappropriateness of the Activity"

Measured by Restatement 520

Back 5

Miller v. Civil Constructors
 Focuses on Restatement 520
• Existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land or chattels of others
• Likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great
• Inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care
• Extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage
• Inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on and
• Extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes

 The court determined that the practice ranges is not an abnormally dangerous activity. Could it cause harm yes, but the other factors outweigh the factors of harm or potential death.
 What we need to make sure that we do is to find the activity that is the real problem it is not carrying the firearm and it is not owning the gravel pit it is having a practice range that is discharged where the individual is.

Front 6

Danger: "Inappropriateness of the Activity"

Dangerous Chemicals

Back 6

 Small leak that lead to a million dollars in damages. Its transportation is an abnormally dangerous activity
 No matter how flammable the chemical is, it was the transporatation of the chemical that lead to the dangerous activity. That is what caused the injury. When we focus on the transportation as the activity and we are guided by restatement 520. we give weight to the third consideration which is whether or not the injury could have been avoided by excercising reasonable care. We give that the most weight for the activity to be abnormally dangerous is that we say there was no way to control the harm. If we could have avoided the harm through the exercise of normal care.
 The court found that this could have been prevented if the D acted in a more reasonable manner. Secure the valve and there would be no leak. No matter what you contain it in it is going to eventually erode the container and leak., The transportation would be considered abnormally dangerous. But, if it is just the valve, you can be held liable since it is not abnormally dangerous

Front 7

Danger: "Inappropriateness of the Activity"


Abnormally dangerous, the inability to control the harm through an exercise of reasonable care.

Back 7

activities in additnio to blasting that have been held to be abnormally dangerous include transportation and sotrage of toxic chemicals and inflammable liquids, pile driving, crop dusting, fumigation with toxic gases

Front 8

Limitations on Strict Liability: Unfairness

Back 8

Killing of the Mink...

 Fairness can be found in the causation aspect of the case. Causation is not unique to negligence. It is also an inquiry in a strict liability case
 Was there reasonableness? Was the dynamiting reasonable. Since this is strict liability we can assume that there was no negligence. Assuming that Dynomice is an abnormally dangerous? Is there liability?
 No, because the risk that occurs is not the kind of risk which makes the blasting ultra hazardous. Therfore it is not within the scope of the risk.
 Pass the but for test. Then next test is forseeabliilty? Was this foreseeable, yes because he was put on notice. So how do we direct fairness? We abandon the tests in negligence
 We only hold you responsible for the harm that is associated with the conduct typically? What is the harm typically associated with Dynamite? Vibrations and Dust not minks eating themselves.
 The court does this out of fairness to the individual who participated in the activity in the first place.

Front 9

Limittations on Strict liability:

Contributory Negligence

Back 9

Since liability of owner of domestic animal known to be vicious is based on obligation as insurer rather than negligence, contributory negligence is not defense, and injured party must have unnecessarily and voluntarily put himself in way to be hurt, knowing probable consequences, so that he may be deemed to have induced injury.


 Whether we are going to recognize contributory negligence to an abnormally dangerous animal
 Contributory Negligence was treated as a Bar in a negligence case. Bar if you were contributory negligence you are barred from recovering.
• last clear chance- ask in addition who was contributory negligence who has the one who could gain recovery
• Inapplicable in S.L cases
• Adopt comparative fault rules
• Notes 1- Rhetorical- if we are going to hold someone responsible for there unreasonablness in a negligence action, why is that not a consideration in a strict liability lawsuit? The court says that CN is not a defense in these cases, but that CN is a bar from negligence. It is not a bar to recovery in and of itself. We don’t’ treat CN as we did under common law. It is still relevant tho.
• Instead of SL dealing with ab dang animals and activities, instead of barring you from recovery we go to Comparative fault rules and go from there.

Front 10

LImitation on SL:

Contrib Negligence

Back 10

Most states have adopted comparative negligence rules, reducing a P's damages by the P's percentage of negligence.