STRICT LIABILITY

3 Types of Strict Liability

• Under strict liability, defendants will be liable no matter how careful they were

• Three general categories:

o Abnormally dangerous activities;

o Animal; and

o Defective products.

Ask these questions

1. What is our cause of action?

2. What are the elements?

3. What facts support those elements?

4. What possible defenses might there be?

Abnormally Dangerous Activities

1. Basic Rule—a defendant engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity will be held strictly liable, without any proof of negligence for personal injuries and property damage caused by the activity, regardless of precautions taken to prevent the harm.

2. “Abnormally Dangerous” Activity Factors:

o Whether it creates a foreseeable and highly significant even when the actor takes due care;

o The severity of the harm resulting from the activity;

o The appropriateness of the location for the activity;

o Whether it has great value to the community

Scope of Liability—strict liability exists and defendant is liable for the harm that that actually occurs from the risk that made the activity abnormally dangerous in the first place.

As is the case with superseding causes in negligence, the defendant’s liability can be cut off by unforeseeable intervening causes.

Animals: wild animals

Wild Animals—as a species or class, not customarily devoted to the service of humankind in the place where it is being kept.

Note 14: This definition of “wild animals” is derived from the Second Restatement. The Third Restatement narrows this definition by excluding animals that pose no obvious risk of causing substantial personal injury.

• Dangerous propensity—owners are strictly liable for the harm arising from the animal’s dangerous propensities.

• Licensees or invitees injured by a wild animal may recover in strict liability.

• Owner is not strictly liable to a trespasser who is injured by the wild animal

  • Except for injuries caused by vicious watchdog

  • Landowner may be liable on negligence theory

• Exception in some jurisdictions: injuries caused by a vicious watchdog

The possessor of a wild animal is strictly liable for harm done by that animal:

o In spite of any precautions the possessor has taken to confine the animal or prevent the harm,

o As long as the plaintiff did not knowingly do anything to bring about the injury, and

o The harm arises from a dangerous propensity that is characteristic of such wild animals or of which the owner has reason to know.

Domestic Animals

• Known to be dangerous—if the owner knows or has reason to know that the particular animal has dangerous propensities and the harm results from those dangerous propensities, then the owner is strictly liable.

• Dog-bite” statutes—many states hold dog owners strictly liable for injuries caused by dogs

Note 15: “Dog-bite” statutes vary widely from state to state.

Trespassing Animals

—the owner of any animal is strictly liable for reasonably foreseeable damage caused by his animal while trespassing on another’s land.

a. Exceptions:

• Household pets, unless the owner knows or has reason to know that the pet is intruding on another’s property in a harmful way

• Animals on public roads—a negligence standard applies

Strict Liability Defenses

1. Contributory Negligence—the plaintiff’s contributory negligence does not bar recovery.

2. Comparative Negligence—jurisdictions vary:

o In some, the plaintiff’s negligence does not bar recovery;

o In others, and under the Third Restatement, the plaintiff’s negligence will diminish the recovery.

3. Assumption of the Risk—the plaintiff’s assumption of the risk is a complete bar to recovery.