What are the limitations of Strict Liability? Flashcards
What is the rule regarding extraordinary risk and the limitation of strict liability seen in Foster v. Preston Mill?
Strict Liability will be limited to consequences that are caused by the risks of the abnormally dangerous activities. If the injury was not a foreseeable risk, then there cannot be strict liability.
There must be nexus between the activity of the defendant and the injury.
Can an Act of God or Act of Nature be a limitation to Strict Liability?
Yes. When an intervening force of nature without which the others harm would not have resulted, prevents the defendant from being liable for harm, if:
1) The operation of the force of nature is extraordinary; and
2) the harm resulting from it is of a kind different from that the likelihood of which made the actor’s conduct negligent.
What does the Restatement 2nd of Torts Section 451 state regarding Acts of God?
An intervening force of nature without which the others harm would not have resulted, prevents the defendant from being liable for harm, if:
1) The operation of the force of nature is extraordinary; and
2) the harm resulting from it is of a kind different from that the likelihood of which made the actor’s conduct negligent.
What factors should be considered when determining if an act of god is a sufficient intervening factor to negate strict liability?
1) The force of nature must be extraordinary;
2) The magnitude of the force of nature is one that is generally unforeseeable;
3) the force of nature must not be already in operation at the time the defendant acts;
4) The harm resulting must be a harm that could not have been prevented by the exercise of due care.
What is Section 451, Comment d’s exception to the force of nature negation?
An actor is liable, even for the result of extraordinary force of nature, if the risks of that force of nature were risks against which the actor should have taken adequate precautions.
Can a plaintiff’s contributory negligence be a defense to strict liability according to Sandy v. Bushey?
Yes. Generally, contributory negligence will not be a defense to an action for strict liability. However, it will be a defense when the plaintiff is negligence and when the negligence rises to the level of implied/voluntary assumption of risk.
What is the implied/voluntary assumption of risk test for contributory negligence?
1) Plaintiff has actual knowledge of the risk;
2) Plaintiff is able to appreciate the risks;
3) Plaintiff voluntarily proceeds to encounter the risk.
