Level of Duty (Element 1): Strict Liability

Falls under element 1

Define strict liability

Defendant held liable whenever their act causes harm, even if it occurred non-negligently. Includes wild animals, ultrahazardous/abnormally dangerous activities, and product liability. 

Defendants way out of strict liability

Only ways out of strict liability is to prove contributory negligence of the plaintiff or blaming it on an act of God.

Yania v. Bigan (1959) - case type

strict liability

Yania v. Bigan (1959) - Facts

Bigan was engaged in a coal strip-mining operation when Yania entered his property to discuss a business matter. Bigan asked for help and Yania jumped from the top of one of the cut’s side walls, fell into the water, and drowned.

Yania v. Bigan (1959) - Procedural History

Yania’s wife sued on behalf of her husband contending that Bigan was responsible for his death due to: (1) his enticing and taunting to jump into the water; (2) his failure to warn of the dangerous conditions; (3) and by failing to rescue him after the jump.

Yania v. Bigan (1959) - Holding (Duty or No Duty)

NO DUTY: There was no duty of rescue. The prima facie case did not have any facts that imposed a legal responsibility on Bigan for placing Yania in the dangerous position in the water and absent such legal responsibility, the law does not impose a duty of rescue on Bigan. Also, Yania was a licensee not an invitee so Bigan did not have to take reasonable care.

Hulle v. Orynge (The Case of Thorns) (1466) - case type

strict liability

Hulle v. Orynge (The Case of Thorns) (1466) - Facts and Procedural History 

·Orynge was sued for trespass with force and arms (quare vi & armis clausum fregi) because he had to enter the plaintiff’s property to pick up the thorns that had fallen onto the plaintiff’s land by their own will (Ipso invito). Thus, it was an accidental tort because it’s a non-volitional entry against his will. He did not want to have to enter the plaintiff’s land.

Hulle v. Orynge (The Case of Thorns) (1466) - Holding (Duty/No Duty)

Duty: if your act causes harm, you must pay; strict liability. If you act in a specific way, you are responsible for the consequences. Only exception is when you have no choice but to act that way because of an act of God.

Catesby: Since the act was lawful, there was no liability

Fairfax: Even if there was a lawful act, there's still liability. He stated that Catesby, is relying on criminal law, animus intent, but in torts there will be an action of trespass.

Brian: When people act they are responsible for the consequences of their actions. If they don't want to be responsible, they shouldn’t act.

Littleton, J.: If your property enters another's you can go get it, but you have to pay if something goes wrong.

Hulle v. Orynge (The Case of Thorns) (1466) - Latin

With force and arms - quare vi & armis clausum fregi 

ipso invito - against one’s will

the tithe case - case type

strict liability

The tithe case (1506) - Facts

Plaintiff owned some corn that was out in the field. Defendant came over and moved it to the plaintiff’s barn so it wasn’t destroyed by animals. However, it was destroyed in the barn. 

The tithe case (1506) - Holding (Duty/no duty)

He had no duty to move the corn or stop the animals from eating but because he acted and the corn was destroyed, he is now responsible. The defendant was liable despite having good intentions because in strict liability, if you cause harm, you are liable. Since the plaintiff could have had a method of recovery from the owner of the animals, and the defendant stripped him of this method of recovery, the plaintiff can recover from the defendant. 

Rylands v. Fletcher (1895) - case type

strict liability

Rylands v. Fletcher (1895) - facts

The most famous argument for strict liability. Defendant built a reservoir above a coal mine with due care, not knowing the mine was there, but it flooded into the coal mine and caused damage to the plaintiff’s mine. There was no evidence that the defendant had done anything wrong, as it was his property and he had the right to build whatever he wanted on it. 

Rylands v. Fletcher (1895) - Exchequer of Pleas (lowest court)

Bramwell (minority opinion but ultimately what the higher courts agree with): Argues that by building the mine the plaintiff opens himself up to the risk of natural water flowing in and destroying the mine. However, this was not natural water, but foreign water that was brought there only by the defendant’s actions But-for the defendant’s actions, the plaintiff’s mine would have been fine and since his action caused harm, he is strictly liable. People have to pay for damages they caused even if unintentional or they didn’t know the damage was done.

ylands v. Fletcher (1895) - Court of Exchequer Chamber

Blackburn (the important opinion!): He believes there is an absolute duty/strict liability rule. Anyone who brings something lawfully onto his land that can escape and cause chaos in another’s is taking the risk and liability for the consequences. So, because he built the reservoir, he’s liable. He is prima facie liable because he had a duty and breached it, and thus needs to pay. States that there are two defenses to beat strict liability: it was actually the plaintiff’s fault (contributory negligence) or it was an act of God.

Blackburn notes they could’ve done a Coaste theorem agreement to buy out the risks, but they didn’t. But the transaction costs don’t allow us, and the more we have those, the less we can trust that things end up in the right hands. Information cost (one party knows about the conduct, whereas the other doesn’t).

ylands v. Fletcher (1895) - Court of Exchequer Chamber Blackburn Rationale

Rationale: Policy-based because, since the plaintiff didn’t accept the risk as he had no say in how the defendant used his property, and is at the defendant’s peril, it’s unfair to make him bear the costs. Example: When you drive a car, you are accepting a risk and subjecting other drivers to a mutual risk (reciprocal risk), but here, there is no reciprocal risk. The nature of the relationship between the parties here is different than the relationship between parties who get into a collision on the road. Relationship between 2 parties driving on the road: Each party’s behavior creates risk to the other. It’s appropriate to hold each other to a lower duty of care. Relationship between 2 landowners: The reservoir’s risk flows only from defendant to plaintiff. The risk is on the plaintiff; the benefit is only with the defendant.

Rylands v. Fletcher (1895) - House of Lords

Cranworth: The defendant is acting to his own benefit and is subjecting the plaintiff to bear the risks so it’s unfair to make the plaintiff bear the costs. This makes him internalize the risks of his behavior and consider the costs and benefits to others. Also agrees with the substantial non-reciprocity as the reason for strict liability. Rule: if you are going to bring something onto your property that provides a private benefit but a distributed risk to another if it escapes, then you should bear the costs of these risks. When one party gets all the benefits and the other just gets the consequences, the one who benefits pays.

Arguments against strict liability

Confounds all degrees of behavior. If you can act reasonably and still be liable, then people will just do everything because it doesn’t matter. It dissuades the pro-social behavior of other because they may be afraid to build something.

Vicarious Liability 

Employer is held strictly liable for the tortious conduct of their employee that are not unforeseeable and that are within the scope of their employment, despite having no fault themselves, hence why it’s considered strict liability. Vicarious liability isn’t for contract employment relationships. You can’t sue their employer, think Uber drivers or doctors. Doctors are rarely employed by their hospital, so you can’t sue the hospital through vicarious liability. 

Vicarious liability - latin

respondeat superior: let the master answer

Vicarious liability policy reasoning

Don’t want remediless plaintiff’s and employers have more money than their employees; employers reap the benefits of their employees so that should come with certain obligations. 

Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. v. United States - case type

vicarious liability

Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. v. United States - Facts

A drunk seaman returned from shore at night and turned some wheel on the drydock wall. He opened valves that control flooding which led to damage to the property and ship. 

Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. v. United States -

Plaintiff didn’t sue the seaman because he’s likely judgment proof and has less money. Sued the employer instead.