Page 32 Flashcards Preview

Torts FYLSE > Page 32 > Flashcards

Flashcards in Page 32 Deck (41):

What is the rationale behind strict liability?

The nature of the cause of the harm is such that liability should be on the party best able to avoid its recurrence


What is the purpose of strict liability?

Reduce how frequently people choose to pursue that activity


Can due care relieve someone of liability for strict liability?



Where does duty come from in strict liability?

Foreseeable plaintiffs and hazards


Is assumption of the risk a defense to an SL activity?

Yes so long as you can show voluntariness


If the plaintiff had to run from his house to his car knowing there is a vicious dog outside, would that be considered assumption of the risk?

No, because the alternative was staying a prisoner inside your house and surrendering your right to move freely on your own property, which wasn't a reasonable alternative


Essentially strict liability is negligence but without what?

Duty and breach


What are the major situations you should look for when you're discussing a strict liability concept?

Defendant's animal caused injury, or D was involved in an abnormally dangerous activity


Strict liability?

Liability without proof of fault


What Are the two major categories of regular strict liability?

Dangerous animals and abnormally dangerous activities


What are the different categories of dangerous animals for strict liability?

Trespassing livestock, domestic animals, wild animals


How does SL apply to trespassing livestock?

If livestock or other animals intrude on someone's land, the owner is subject to SL for physical harm caused


What is the definition of livestock?

Any animal of domestic value that is relatively easy to control excluding pets


Examples of livestock?

Cows, sheep, horses, pigs, etc.


Why does a court presume harm from livestock?

Because generally when they intrude on land they do harm by eating grass, trampling crops, scratching digging, etc.


What are the two different views on trespassing livestock for SL?

- R2: SL imposed for the owner unless the harm wasn't foreseeable, the animals were being driven along the highway and confined to abutting land, or statute requires the plaintiff to have a fence
- R3: SL extends to any injury from an animal intrusion


How are domestic animals treated at SL?

If a domestic animal has a known dangerous propensity not shared by most members of its class, the owner is strictly liable for all harm that comes from that propensity


What is the reasoning for the domestic animals portion of strict liability?

The social utility of keeping an animal known to have atypical dangerous tendencies is outweighed by the magnitude of the risk involved


What is the restatement 2 approach to domestic animals for SL?

Owner only has to know the animal has shown a tendency to attack or has a dangerous character, not that he had previously attacked someone


Some animals are so frequently dangerous that what is necessary to be held liable for SL?

No prior notice is required, because the owner is held to know that they have dangerous propensities


What are some animals that count as dangerous animals under domestic animals?

Pit bulls, bees, bulls


If you have a animal that hasn't in the past so dangerous characteristics, are you strictly liable if it suddenly acts in a dangerous way?

- some courts: No, essentially every dog is allowed one free bite
- some courts: SL is imposed on anyone bitten by a dog regardless of having known of that characteristic previously


How do wild animals relate to SL?

Keepers of wild animals that cause injury are strictly liable if it is part of that animal's natural capacity, regardless of how much care they use


What does the second restatement say about wild animals and strict liability?

Injury that comes from a dangerous propensity characteristic of the wild animal results in ability, but if the injury comes from something that is not characteristic to the animal, there's no liability


If a child is mauled by a bear that you own, are you liable?

Yes, you are strictly liable because mauling is part of the dangerous propensity characteristic to Bears


If someone tripped over your sleeping bear, are you liable for their injuries?

There's no SL because tripping over a sleeping bear is not what makes bears dangerous


Who Decides if an animal is wild or domestic?

The court


What are some examples of animals that are not considered to be wild?

Bees, cats, stallions, parrots


The wild animal rule for SL applies to what kinds of things?

Mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, insects


What are some examples of wild animals?

Wolves, snakes, lions


What else are owners liable for with their wild animal besides injuries?

Any trespass caused by the animal


Are lions in a safari park considered wild animals?



Wild animals that are held under public duty don't have what?

SL implications, instead negligence has to be shown with the defendant be held to a high amount of care ie) zoo


How do abnormally dangerous activities relate to strict liability?

If you pose an unavoidable risk of substantial harm to others, or do an ultrahazardous activity, you can be strictly liable


If you engage in an abnormally dangerous activity or condition, what is your liability?

You are strictly liable for any harm to the person, land, or chattels of another as a result of the activity, even if you use reasonable care


When does the statute of limitations begin running for abnormally dangerous activities?

When the injury is inflicted


What Are some things that are included in abnormally dangerous activities?

Blasting, storing explosives, fumigating, cropdusting, flammable liquids, etc.


What Is the first restatement's definition of the term ultrahazardous?

Involving a risk of serious harm to the person, land, chattels of others that can't be eliminated by using utmost care and isn't a matter of common usage


Examples of dangerous activities that are not considered ultrahazardous?

Things that are commonly used like fire, vehicles, guns, boilers, etc.


What was the change for abnormally dangerous activities from the first restatement to the second restatement?

Changed ultrahazardous to abnormally dangerous and put the focus on the context of the activity


If you fence in an electricity generator and post signs, does that make you not liable in strict liability?

No, you're still liable because that activity is so dangerous even if you use reasonable care it doesn't matter