Strict Liability + Mixed Liability

Prima Facie Case (Strict Liability)

Prima Facie Case: liability w/o fault (different from negligence: duty, breach, causation, harm)

• D engaged in activity subject to SL

• Causation: activity caused P’s harm

• Damages

Abnormally Dangerous Activities

• RST § 519: general principle

  • One who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to liability for harm to the person, land or chattels of another resulting from the activity, although he has exercised utmost care to prevent the harm.

  • SL is limited to the kind of harm, the possibility of which makes the activity abnormally dangerous (harm within the risk standard)

• RTT § 20: abnormally dangerous activity if (note: less factors than RST § 520)

1. Activity creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised; and

2. Activity is not one of common usage

Proximate Cause (ADA)

• RST § 522: contributing Actions of third persons, animals, or nature

  • SL for abnormally dangerous activity even though harm unexpectedly caused by innocent, negligent, or reckless conduct of a third person, action of an animal, or operation of a force of nature [e.g., might be protected from intentional tort, but Yukon suggests you can still be held liable for intentional]

  • But still has to be kind of harm which makes activity dangerous

• RST § 524A: no thin skull rule for strict liability

  • No SL for harm caused by an abnormally dangerous activity if the harm would not have resulted but for the abnormally sensitive character of the plaintiff/plaintiff’s activity

  • An explicit rejection of the thin skull rule for certain areas of liability (for SL and nuisance)

Defenses to ADA

• Comparative Negligence: RTT § 25 comparative responsibility: if P is contributorily negligent in taking reasonable precautions, P’s recovery in SL claims can be reduced in accordance with comparative responsibility

  • Assumption of Risk: RST § 523: AoR is a defense that bars recovery from ADA injury

  • Old Contributory Negligence Approach: RST § 524: Contributory negligence not a defense unless P’s contributory negligence unreasonably subjected himself to risk of harm (basically secondary AoR)

  • We’re not comparing fault; don’t need to find D at fault

Private Nuisance

• RST § 821D private nuisance: a private nuisance is a nontrespassory invasion of another’s interest in private use and enjoyment of land

  • Only applies to real property

Requirements: RST § 822: general rule for private nuisance liability, liable if…

• Other has property rights and privileges with respect to the interfered with use/enjoyment

• Invasion is substantial

• Actor’s conduct is legal cause of invasion

• Intentional and unreasonable, OR

• Unintentional and otherwise actionable (negligent, reckless, ADA)

Act Requirement: generally, cannot recover for nuisance based on natural features on one’s land; must be some positive action à liability

Limitations (Private Nuisance)

• “Live and let live” rule: everyone is going to low-level intrude on enjoyment of neighbor’s use of their land through common and ordinary use (and this will likely be reciprocal); low-level stuff isn’t actionable

• Locality rule: reasonable use depends on location of land

• Ordinary Member rule: nuisances are only actionable if they would disturb an ordinary member of the community, not the specific P, supported by RST § 821F: significant harm

Defenses (Private Nuisance)

• Consent to invasion negates element of nuisance claim

  • Consent to one type of invasion doesn’t impute to all invasions

• AoR is defense in nuisance actions in the same way that it is in other tort actions

• Coming to the nuisance

  • Coming to the nuisance: a factor, but not dispositive (RST § 840D)

• Compliance with zoning laws

Remedies (Nuisance)

• Temporary damages – paying out to Ps each yearb.

• Permanent damages – one single lump sum (easement for current level of nuisance)

• Injunctions – shutting down the nuisance-causing operation

Public Nusicance

• Affects large group of people or whole community (no bright line test to divide from private nuisance)

• General Rule: No private Cause of Action unless P suffers special harm

  • Rationale: Don’t want many people all filing lawsuits at same time: swamp courts, crushing liability

    • Government agencies better suited to tackle large-scale social problems

    • Modern class actions alleviate many of these concerns

  • Exception: If P suffered special, large amount of damage – “different in kind” or sufficient difference in degree from damage suffered by others

Product Liability (General Approach)

RST Approach - RST § 402A: special liability of seller for physical harm to user or consumer (incredibly influential, adopted by many jdx even though RTT)

• Basic Rule

  • One who sells a 1) defective and 2) unreasonably dangerous product to a consumer that results in personal injury/harm to property is subject to liability if

    • The seller is engaged in the business of selling such product

    • It is expected to reach the consumer w/o substantial change in condition

      • Applies even if seller exercises due care and there’s no privity of k

• Caveat: No opinion as to whether rules apply to…

  • Harm to persons other than users or consumers (bystanders)

    • But in practice, everyone has agreed there’s recovery for bystanders (if innocent – similar to ADA)

  • Seller of a product expected to be processed/substantially changed

  • Seller of a component part of product to be assembled

• Note: not governed by warranties (see comment m)