Cases Flashcards
(131 cards)
1
Q
Pearson v. Dodd
Reporter
A
In order to be liable for conversion, the defendant must permanently erase or take away the plaintiff’s use of the chattel.
2
Q
Katko v. Briney
Shot Gun
A
- Human life and safety takes priority over property rights.
- A property owner cannot use lethal or indiscriminate force to defend their property if they do not believe their life is in danger.
3
Q
Bonkowski v. Arlan’s Department Store
Jewelry Thief
A
- Shopkeeper’s privilege: merchant is privileged to detain someone they suspect of theft.
- The merchant must have a reasonable belief the theft occurred and they must conduct a reasonable investigation and must be close to the store itself.
4
Q
Sindle v. New York City Transit Authority
School Bus
A
Those in a parental role can use reasonable force to maintain discipline for safety purposes.
5
Q
Garratt v. Dailey
Chair
A
- The defendant must intend to make contact AND have substantial certainty that the contact will cause harm.
- The contact can be indirect and still be considered battery.
6
Q
McGuire v. Almy
Insane Lady
A
Legal insanity is not a defense against battery.
7
Q
Wallace v. Rosen
Fire Alarm
A
Not all unwanted touching constitutes battery. Battery requires that the unwanted touching be done in a “rude, insolent or angry manner”.
8
Q
Wagner v. State
Grabbing Hair
A
- To commit a battery, the defendant only needs to intend to contact, not necessarily to cause harm.
- Legal insanity is not a defense for battery.
9
Q
Talmage v. Smith
Threw Stick
A
A defendant is liable for the damages that result from an illegal action, regardless of whether the plaintiff was the intended target or not
10
Q
Fisher v. Carrousel
Plate
A
- An offensive contact, when done in anger, constitutes battery regardless of whether physical injury is caused.
- Offensive contact extends to the objects associated with the plaintiff, such as those items they are holding, and not necessarily direct physical contact with the plaintiff.
11
Q
I de S et ux. v. W de S
Axe in Tavern
A
- Established assault as a tort.
- Apprehension of harm is harm in and of itself.
12
Q
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill
Sexual Harassment
A
It is not necessary that the contact be actually physically possible, only that the plaintiff have a “well-founded fear of an imminent battery” and the defendant has an apparent ability to follow through on the battery.
13
Q
Big Town Nursing Home, Inc. v. Newman
Old Man
A
- Restraining someone against their will without legal justification is false imprisonment.
- A defendant can be held for actual and punitive damages for false imprisonment.
14
Q
Parvi v. City of Kingston
Drunk on the Highway
A
The plaintiff must be conscious of the confinement for it to be considered false imprisonment. However, ‘conscious’ can mean conscious at the time of the imprisonment without any current recollection.
15
Q
Hardy v. LaBelle’s Distributing Co.
Interrogation by Employer
A
There must be evidence that the plaintiff was confined against their will to qualify as false imprisonment.
16
Q
Whittaker v. Sandford
Trapped on a Boat
A
Being denied access to freedom is considered physical restraint even if the plaintiff is not be physically held.
17
Q
Enright v. Groves
Mistaken Arrest
A
A police officer commits false imprisonment if they arrest someone for something which is not a crime, even if they thought it was a crime.
18
Q
Dougherty v. Stepp
Innocent Entrance
A
A defendant can be held liable for trespass to land even if no damage is caused or if the land is unenclosed.
19
Q
Herrin v. Sutherland
Shooting over Land
A
- A defendant does not need to physically stand on another’s land to be held liable for trespass to land.
- Property extended vertically as well as horizontally.
20
Q
Rogers v. Board of Road Commissioners for Kent County
Pole Left Behind
A
- A defendant may be held liable for trespass to land if they leave an unauthorized object on the property.
- Consent to stay or leave someone on someone’s land can be revoked.
21
Q
State Rubbish Collectors Association v. Siliznoff
Trash Mafia
A
The defendant may be held liable for mental distress caused by an action which did not amount to assault.
22
Q
Taylor v. Vallelunga
Father’s Beating
A
The defendant must have intended to inflict emotional distress or have substantial certainty that the distress will occur to be held liable for IIED.
23
Q
Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida
Rude Employee
A
- Mere insults and vulgarities do not amount to IIED.
- Severe emotional distress is an objective standard of what a reasonable person would experience.
24
Q
Harris v. Jones
Stutter
A
The plaintiff’s distress must be extremely severe in order to recover for IIED.
25
Snyder v. Phelps
| Westboro Baptist Church
The defendant cannot be held liable for IIED if the speech is constitutionally protected.
26
Glidden v. Szybiak
| Grabbing a Dog's Ears
A defendant must have caused damages to be held liable for trespass to chattels.
27
CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc.
| Spam Emails
* Email and other internet transmissions are considered physical contact for trespass to chattels.
* A defendant must have caused damages to be held liable for trespass to chattels.
28
O'Brien v. Cunard S.S. Co.
| On Board Vaccination
If the plaintiff does not indicate that they do not consent, or if in the circumstances consent is implied, a defendant is not liable.
29
Mohr v. Williams
| ENT Decision
Even if a defendant acts in good faith and without negligence, they may still be held liable if they act without the consent of the plaintiff. However, this may mitigate the damages a defendant incurs.
30
Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.
| Football Inury
Players consent to injuries inflicted within the scope of the rules of a game. This includes actions which may be fouls that regularly occur and are expected during the course of the game.
31
De May v. Roberts
| Birthing Assistant
* Consent is invalid if it has been obtained through fraud. However, if the fraud is collateral consent is still valid.
* Consent can be revoked retroactively.
32
Lubitz v. Wells
| Golf Club
A defendant has a duty to mitigate foreseeable risks rather than all possible risks.
33
Pipher v. Parsell
| Dangerous Passenger
A defendant may be held liable for negligence if they anticipate and fail to take precautions against another person’s harmful conduct.
34
Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co.
| Water Mains
A defendant must only meet a reasonable standard of care given average circumstances. They are not negligent if they do not take precautions against anomalous or unforeseeable events.
35
Davison v. Snohomish County
| Car Through Guard Rail
A defendant only has a duty to ensure reasonable safety which is commensurate with the danger that risk poses.
36
Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Krayenbuhl
| Foot in the Turntable
* Even if the plaintiff was behaving negligently, if the risk was foreseeable a defendant has a duty of care to mitigate that risk.
* A defendant is responsible for taking reasonable measures to protect others. The precautions must be proportionate to the likelihood and severity of the risk.
37
United States v. Carroll Towing Co.
| Boats Breaking Free
If B
38
Vaughan v. Menlove
| Haystack Fire
* A defendant is held to an objective standard of what a reasonably prudent person would do in the circumstances. Factors such as intelligence do not mitigate liability.
* Exercising a good faith judgment is not a shield for negligence liability.
39
Delair v. McAdoo
| Blown Tire
The driver of a vehicle has a duty to have reasonable knowledge that their car is in working order.
40
Trimarco v. Klein
| Shower Door
A defendant may be held liable for negligence if they ignore customary precautions and the burden of those precautions is low.
41
Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co.
| Emergency Escape
Negligence is relative to the circumstances. A defendant is not required to have the most rational judgment under emergency circumstances that were not of their own making.
42
Roberts v. State of Louisiana
| Blind Man
A defendant may not be held liable for negligence if they act in accordance with customary rules.
43
Roberts v. Lindsay
| Snowmobile
Normally children are not held to the same standard as adults in negligence cases except if they are performing actions which are inherently dangerous (such as operating machinery).
44
Breunig v. American Family Ins. Co.
| Schizophrenic Episode
A mentally ill defendant may have reduced liability if they have an episode which severely impairs their judgment and that episode was not foreseeable.
45
Heath v. Swift Wings Inc.
| Inexperienced Plane Crash
The standard to which professionals are held is an objective professional standard and is not moderated by the level of experience that professional has.
46
Hodges v. Carter
| Suing Attorney
* An attorney may not be held liable for negligence if they make a good faith mistake not clarified in the law. This does not extend to good faith mistakes made in an area about which they are expected to be knowledgeable.
* Plaintiffs must prove that had the attorney acted with a reasonable professional standard they would have won the case.
47
Boyce v. Brown
| Broken Ankle
The standard to which professionals are held is an objective professional standard and is not moderated by the level of experience that professional has.
48
Morrison v. MacNamara
| Smear Test
Professionals are to be held to a national, rather than local, standard.
49
Scott v. Bradford
| Hysterectomy Risks
Part of a doctor’s standard of care is informed consent. Even if the procedure was done well and the decision to do the procedure was correct, if there is no informed consent there is medical malpractice.
50
Moore v. The Regents of the University of California
| Medical Experiment
Doctors have a duty to disclose to their patients interests, even outside of the medical scope, which may affect their medical judgment.
51
Surocco v. Geary
| Fire
* Individual rights of property can be superseded by human necessity in extreme circumstances, especially in situations of public necessity.
* The authority figure is critical as they must protect the public rather than satisfy their personal interests.
52
Vincent v. Lake Erie Transp. Co.
| Disaster While Docked
* Even if decisions are made in good faith and without negligence, if the action is intentional the plaintiff can recover damages.
* A plaintiff may recover damages if the purpose of the action is to protect private interests.
53
Pokora v. Wabash Railway
| Crossing Train Tracks Without Getting Out
If someone violates a statute, etc., they may not be held liable as a rule of law if that rule is unreasonable or impossible to follow in the circumstances.
54
Stachniewicz v. Mar-Cam
| Bar Fight
If a defendant could have prevented a harm from occurring if they had followed regulations then the defendant has been negligent per se.
55
Osborn v. McMasters
| Mislabelled Poison
Violating a statute evidences a breach of duty and therefore negligence per se.
56
Perry v. SN and SN
| Daycare Molestation
* There is no underlying duty to protect others unless the defendant themselves has created the harm.
* Criminal statutes do not fall under the scope of negligence.
57
Zeni v. Anderson
| Walking on a Ploughed Road
If someone violates a statute, etc., they may not be held liable as a rule of law if that rule is unreasonable or impossible to follow in the circumstances.
58
Martin v. Herzog
| Headlights
Failure to abide by a statute, if that conduct caused the harm, constitutes negligence per se.
59
Goddard v. Boston & Maine
| Banana at the Train Station
A plaintiff must prove that the defendant was actually negligent to recover damages.
60
Ortega v. Kmart
| Spilt Milk
* Stores are not expected to guarantee their customers’ safety, but they do have a duty of care to keep the premises safe.
* The burden is on the plaintiff to prove the defendant had notice of the hazard, and the hazard had not been remedied.
61
HE Butt Groc. v. Resendez
| Grape Display
In order to recover for negligence from a store, a plaintiff must prove:
1. The defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard
2. The condition of the store posed an unreasonable risk of harm
3. The defendant did not exercise reasonable care to prevent the risk
4. The defendant’s failure to prevent the risk was the proximate cause of the injury.
62
Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway
| Old Banana at the Train Station
Evidence that a defendant had enough time to act to prevent injury is proof of negligence.
63
Joye v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co.
| Banana at the Supermarket
If it is unclear how long a hazard has been there, negligence cannot be proven.
64
Jasko v. FW Woolworth
| Pizza
If the defendant created an environment in which the type of injury in question would occur, the plaintiff does not have to prove the defendant had notice of the exact hazard which caused that specific injury.
65
Byrne v. Boadle
| Flour Barrel
Res ipsa loquitur provides evidence of a breach of duty and therefore provides evidence for a prima facie case of negligence.
66
Cruz v. Daimler Chrysler Motors
| Airbags Accident
Res ipsa loquitur applies to events which
1. Do not occur without negligence
2. Other possible causes by other parties have been ruled out
3. Negligence was within the scope of the defendant’s duty.
67
James v. Wormuth
| Wire in the Lungj
Res ipsa loquitur does not apply if the allegedly negligent act was done intentionally by the defendant.
68
Larson v. St. Francis Hotel
| Chair out the WIndow
In order for a plaintiff to make a res ipsa loquitur case they must prove (1) there was an accident, (2) the thing which caused the accident was under exclusive control of the defendant, (3) if the defendant had used reasonable care the accident would not have occurred.
69
Sullivan v. Crabtree
| Truck off the Road
Procedural effect of res ipsa loquitur:
1. Warrants an inference of negligence which the jury may draw or not
2. Raises a presumption of negligence
3. Shifts the burden of proof to the defendant.
70
Perkins v. Texas and New Orleans Railway
| Speeding Train
Negligence only requires that the defendant’s actions were a substantial factor in the harm, not the only cause. The standard is sine qua non: if the accident would have occurred in the absence of the defendant’s actions then the defendant’s actions were not a substantial factor.
71
Gentry v. Douglas Hereford Ranch
| Slip, Fall, Shoot
* If factual causation cannot be proved, speculation alone does not prove negligence or overcome a motion for summary judgment.
* Causation requires that a plaintiff prove both cause in fact and proximate causation.
72
Reynolds v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
| Fall off the Stairs
If the negligence increases the likelihood of the harm occurring, the possibility that the accident might have happened absent the negligence does not break the chain of causation.
73
Smith v. Providence Health & Services
| Ignored Stroke
In order to recover for medical negligence, a plaintiff must prove he lost a substantial chance of a better medical outcome as a direct result of medical negligence. The defendant receives damages which reflect the quantity of loss.
74
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals
| Bendectin Defects
In order for a court to determine if an scientific expert’s testimony is valid, they must examine certain factors:
1. Whether the theory or method is approved of by the scientific community
2. Whether it has been subjected to peer review
3. Whether it can be tested
4. Whether the error rate is acceptable.
75
Kramer Service v. Wilkins
| Skin Cancer
Post hoc ergo propter hoc does not prove causation.
76
Hill v. Edmonds
| Parked at Night
If there is more than one party which has been negligent, each party bears the responsibility of the entirety of the damages, rather than just a fraction.
77
Anderson v. Minneapolis & Marie Railway
| Merging Fire
If a negligent action combines with an act of unknown origin, the defendant is still liable as his action could alone have caused the damage.
78
Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories
| Fungible Drugs
Industry liability: when an industry manufactures fungible goods, if a harm is the result of that good and it cannot be determined who exactly manufactured the exact good in question, the industry has a whole will bear damages proportional to their market share unless they can definitively prove they could not have manufactured the product in question.
79
Summers v. Tice
| Shooting Accident
If two defendants acted negligently, and it cannot be determined which one caused the harm, both will be held liable and will split the cost of damages between them.
80
Commonwealth v. Peterson
| University Shooting
Unless there is a special relationship, a person does not have a duty to warn or protect another person from a third party’s criminal acts.
81
Hegel v. Langsam
| Girl Gone Wild
Universities do not have a duty to intervene in students’ personal lives.
82
LS Ayres v. Hicks
| Kid in Elevator
* There is a special relationship between a shopkeeper and their customers and therefore there is a duty of care.
* If the defendant invites the plaintiff and that plaintiff is injured by an instrument under the control of the defendant then the defendant may be liable for damages even if the defendant was not directly negligent.
83
JS and MS v. RTH
| Neighbor Molestation
* Duty of care weighs up factors: (1) foreseeability and risk of harm, (2) competing interest of the parties, (3) public policy and fairness.
* Someone who suspects their spouse is sexually abusing others has a duty to report the abuse.
* Public and societal interests may outweigh concern with preserving (e.g.) marital privacy.
84
Tarasoff v. Regents of UC
| Therapist Failure to Warn
* There is a duty created by special relationship between a therapist and a third party if the therapist has knowledge that it is reasonably foreseeable that the patient will inflict harm on the third party.
* Public policy concerns outweigh doctor-patient confidentiality.
85
Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting
| Construction Car Accident
The negligent action of a third party does not necessarily break down the causal connection between the negligence and the injury. The third party negligence must be extraordinary or unforeseeable to break causation.
86
Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & Railroad
| Gasoline Fire
A third party’s criminal action usually breaks causation as it is not a foreseeable act.
87
Fuller v. Preis
| Suicide by Car Accident
* Suicide is not a superseding cause because although it is intentional, courts recognize it can be an “irresistible impulse”.
* If a reasonable person would foresee that the negligent action would cause harm, it does not matter if the exact manner of the harm is unforeseeable.
88
McCoy v. American Suzuki Motor
| Rescuer at a Car Accident
* Rescue doctrine: allows the rescuer to recover for damages caused to him by the danger created by negligence.
* Four elements: (1) defendant was negligent and the negligence caused the original harm, (2) danger was imminent, (3) reasonably prudent person would have rescued, (4) rescuer acted with reasonable care.
89
Atlantic Coast Line v. Daniels
| Car Stalled on the Tracks
A court may set an arbitrary limit on liability for a negligent action which caused injury, which is done by examining proximate causation.
90
Ryan v. New York Central Railroad
| Knock-On Fire
A negligent defendant is not responsible for damages which are a remote cause of their negligent action - those consequences which are not a “natural or expected result of the [negligent action]”
91
Bartolone v. Jeckovich
| Mentally Ill and a Minor Car Crash
“Thin Skull” plaintiff: a defendant is liable for all damages even if their negligence harms someone more than one should think (e.g. due to a pre-existing condition).
92
Polemis and Furness
| Vapors Blow Boat Up
Even if the exact nature of the damage is unpredictable, if the negligent action is likely to damage of any kind, that defendant is liable for negligence.
93
Yun v. Ford Motor
| Chasing Spare Tire
A negligent action is only the proximate cause when the injury is a foreseeable consequence of the negligence. The negligence is not a proximate cause when a consequence is highly extraordinary.
94
Wagon Mound No. 1
| Oil in the Harbor
A negligent defendant is only liable for foreseeable damages.
95
Wagon Mound No. 2
| Oil in the Harbor
If a defendant could foresee the risk and could have prevented it, he is liable for negligence damages.
96
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad
| Fireworks on a Train
A negligent defendant is only liable for risks inside the ‘zone of danger’ and must only take reasonable precautions to protect those inside that zone.
97
Kelly v. Gwinnell
| DUI
* A host is responsible for any negligence resulting from their guest’s intoxication.
* Liability for damages can be implemented as a matter of supporting public policy.
98
Enright v. Eli Lilly
| Pre-Conception Negligence
* Public policy may expand the limits of proximate causation under extraordinary circumstances, but that liability is not limitless.
* A child cannot recover for damages caused by negligence pre-conception.
99
Teeters v. Currey
| Statute of Limitations for Medical Malpractice
* The statute of limitations in medical malpractice suits begins when the malpractice is discovered, not from when the negligence occurred.
* Statutes of limitations are a matter of public policy, look to promote stability and reduce uncertainty in defending claims.
100
Freehe v. Freehe
| Husband Sues Wife
The court decided that interspousal tort immunity was outdated and that the immunity should be abandoned in personal injury cases.
101
Zellmer
| Child Drowns
Parents and those in loco parentis are immune from tort liability as it allows parents to discipline their children as they see fit.
102
Abernathy v. Sisters of St. Mary's
| Negligence at Charity Hospital
The public policy benefits of protecting charities is outdated as charities are now big businesses capable of absorbing the cost of damages.
103
Deuser v. Vecera
| Park Ranger Arrest
The US government cannot be sued for the actions of an employee if the employee is (1) acting as a matter of choice and (2) acting to support the social, political or economic goals of the governing body.
104
Delong v. Erie County
| Woman Killed by Intruder
The municipality and police force do not have a general duty to protect the public unless there exists a special duty. Once the municipality promises an individual a service, they are responsible for not doing it negligently.
105
Riss v. New York
| Acid Thrown
A municipality has immunity from tort prosecution for failure to act. Municipalities are bound by the resources they are allocated so holding them liable for not providing services creates limitless liability and requires municipalities to have limitless resources.
106
Butterfield v. Forrester
| Horse Crashed into Pole
Plaintiff cannot sue for negligence damages unless they exercised reasonable care to avoid the danger. This created the doctrine of contributory negligence.
107
Davies v. Mann
| Unfettered Donkey
‘Last best chance’ doctrine: even if a plaintiff has been found to be contributorily negligent, if the defendant could have prevented the injury they can still recover.
108
McIntyre v. Balentine
| Drunk Car Crash
Modified comparative negligence: the plaintiff may recover if they were negligent but only if their negligence was less than the defendant’s.
109
Seigneur v. National Fitness Institute
| Injured at the Gym
Exculpatory clauses (express assumption of risk) are valid so long (1) as the defendant does not intentionally cause harm or act recklessly, (2) bargaining power between the parties is not grossly unequal and (3) the contract does not involve an essential public service.
110
Rush v. Commercial Realty
| Fallen through Outhouse
If a plaintiff is only given one option for an essential service then they do not voluntarily assume the risk.
111
Anderson v. Sears
| Burned Baby
‘Maximum recovery rule’: the jury is directed to award a reasonable sum of damages and if the judge finds these damages to be excessive he may himself reduce the damages.
112
Richardson v. Champman
| Rear-Ended by a Truck
Damages are excessive if (1) they fall outside the range of reasonable and fair compensation, (2) they result from an emotional reaction or prejudice, (3) they are so great as to shock the conscience.
113
Montgomery Ward v. Anderson
| Discounted Medical Bills
Collateral-source rule: “[a claimant is allowed] to collect damages for medical and hospital care from the defendant even if he has insurance to cover it” (Black’s Law). Evidence that a plaintiff has already received money from the injury is inadmissible.
114
Cheatham v. Pohle
| Revenge Porn
A plaintiff has no constitutionally protected right to punitive damages. Instead, punitive damages are tools of the state to prevent wrongdoing.
115
State Farm Mutual Automobile v. Campbell
| Misinformed Liability
* Due Process clause prohibits excessive and arbitrary punishments. The USSC has established that in awarding damages, courts should consider (1) the reprehensibility of the misconduct, (2) the ratio of actual and potential harm and the punitive damages awarded and (3) the usual punitive damages awarded in similar cases.
* A single digit ratio of compensatory to punitive damages is usually appropriate.
116
Biercyznski v. Rogers
| Drag Race
If two people are acting negligently and one causes the plaintiff injury, both can be held liable for any injuries resulting from their negligence.
117
Coney v. J.L.G Industries
| Worker Killed by Machine
Comparative negligence does not eliminate joint and several liability. Even if the plaintiff was negligent, they can still recover the full amount of damages.
118
Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply
| Sudden Braking
Comparative negligence eliminates joint and several liability. The damages owed by the defendant should be reduced by their percentage culpability.
119
Bundt v. Embro
| Vision Blocked by Roadworks
Once a plaintiff recovers the full amount in damages, the other joint tortfeasors are discharged from liability.
120
Cox v. Pearl Investment
| Injured at Goodwill
If a contract releases one joint tortfeasor from liability but specifies that the plaintiff can sue other tortfeasors, those tortfeasors are still liable for damages.
121
Knell v. Feltman
| Passengers Injured in Car Accident
A defendant can sue another party for contribution even if that party was not named in the original suit.
122
Yellow Cab v. Dreslin
| Taxi Collision with Wife
If a joint tortfeasor is not liable to the plaintiff then the other joint tortfeasor cannot seek contribution from them.
123
Slocum v. Donahue
| Vehicular Homicide
* Contribution and indemnification are mutually exclusive.
* If there is a release made between the plaintiff and one of the joint tortfeasors, the other joint tortfeasors cannot seek contribution from the released party.
124
Bussard v. Minimed
| Exterminator and Car Accident
Under the 'going and coming' rule, employers are generally not liable for torts which occur during their employees' commutes. An exception to this is when an employee 'endangers others with a risk arising from or related to work'.
125
O'Shea v. Welch
| Stopping at Auto Repair Shop
'Slight deviation' rule: employer is still liable for their employee's torts even if the employee deviates slightly from the prescribed work unless the deviation involves something wholly personal and unrelated to work.
126
Murrell v. Goertz
| Battery for Newspapers
Independent contractors do not fall under the scope of respondeat superior.
127
Maloney v. Rath
| Poor Car Repair
Car maintenance is a non delegable duty. A party is liable for their independent contractor's negligence if the contractor's work was non delegable.
128
Foster v. Preston Mill
| Scared Minks
Strict liability is confined to those damages which result from that which makes the activity ultrahazardous.
129
Rylands v. Fletcher
| Flooded Mines
An owner is liable for his land and the alterations he makes to it even if he has not been negligent.
130
Miller v. Civil Constructors
| Shooting Range
A defendant is strictly liable for damages that result from an ultrahazardous activity which is 'unduly dangerous and inappropriate to the place where it is maintained'.
131
Indiana Harvor Belt Railroad v. American Cyanamid
| Chemical Spill
Shipping hazardous chemicals is not an ultrahazardous activity.
