4. Strict Liability

Question 1

What are the 3 elements?

Answer 1

(i) the nature of D’s activity imposes an absolute duty to make safe;
(ii) the dangerous aspect of the activity was the actual and proximate cause of P’s injury; AND
(iii) P suffered damage to person or propery.

Answer 2

Trespassing Animals

• Owner is strictly liable for reasonably foreseeable damage done by a trespass of his animals

Personal Injuries

1. Domesticated

• Pets, farm animals, etc
• D NOT strictly liable for domesticated animals
• Exception: when D KNOWS of its dangerous propensities that are not common to the species.
  
  • Injury cause by the normally dangerous characteristics of domestic animals (eg. bulls or honeybees) does not create strict liability.

**2. Wild **

• Strict liability to licensees and invitees for injuries cause by wild animals (even those kept as pets)

NOTE: Trespassers

• SL generally not imposed in favor of trespassers in asense of Owner’s negligence.
• However, landowner may be liable on intentional tort grounds for injuries inflicted by vicious watchdogs.

Question 3

When is SL imposed?

Answer 3

An activity is abnormally dangerous if:

1. It creates a foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors; AND
2. Activity is not a matter of common usage in the community.
   - e.g. explosives blasting, toxic chemicals, nuclear radiation,

EXAM TIP: NO AMOUNT OF REASONABLE CARE ON THE PART OF D WILL RELIEVE HIM OF LIABILITY IN A STRICT LIABILITY SITUATION.

Answer 4

1] Harm must result from Normally Dangerous Characteristics

• D’s liability only extends to foreseeable Ps
• Harm must result from the kind of danger to be anticipated from the dangerous activity or animal (including harm caused by fleeing from the perceived danger)
• Hence, SL does NOT apply when the injury is caused by something other than the dangerous aspect of the activity (e.g. truck carrying dynamite blows a tire and hits a pedestrian but does not explode)

2] Defenses

• In contributory negligence states, CN is no defense if P has failed to realize the danger or guard against it.
• It is a defense if P knew of the danger and his unreasonable conduct was the very cause of the harm from the wild animal or adnormally dangerous activity.
• Assumption of risk is a good defense to SL.
• Most comparative negligence states apply their comparative negligence rules to SL cases.