Strict liability

Question 1

Strict liability: PF case

Answer 1

(1) the nature of the D’s activity imposes an absolutely duty to make save
(2) dangerous aspect of D’s activity was the actual and proximate cause of the P’s injury
(3) P suffered damage to person or property

Question 2

Trespassing animals

Answer 2

Owner strictly liable for reasonably foreseeable damage

Question 3

Personal injuries by wild animals

Answer 3

Owner strictly liable to licensees and invitees (even animals kept as pets)

Question 4

Personal injuries by domestic animals (including farm animals)

Answer 4

No strict liability UNLESS owner has knowledge of that particular animal’s dangerous propensities that are not common to the species

Injury caused by normal dangerous characteristics of domestic animals (e.g. bulls or honeybees) does NOT create strict liability

Question 5

Abnormally dangerous activities

Answer 5

(1) activity must create a foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors
(2) activity is not a matter of common usage in the community

Question 6

Defenses: contributory negligence states

Answer 6

CN is no defense if P failed to realize the danger or guard against it

It IS a defense if P knew of danger and unreasonable conduct was the very cause of harm from wild animal or abnormally dangerous activity

AOR is a good defense

Question 7

Defenses: comparative negligence states

Answer 7

Comparative negligence rules applied to strict liability cases: CN and AOR are treated as items of fault that reduce P’s recovery