Strict Liability

Wild Animals

i)       Wild animals: Landowners not responsible for harm done by wild animals unless they reduce the wild animal (not devoted to service of man) to possession or introduce non-indigenous animal to area. Possessor liable for all harm done to others/land/chattels by that animal (even w/due care).

(1)   Prox cause: limited to dangerous characteristics ordinarily associated w/ that animal, or that possessor has reason to know.

(2)   Training/taming not a defense.

Domestic animals

i)       not strictly liable unless owner knows or has reason to know animal has dangerous propensity abnormal to class for harms done related to those dangerous propensities.

(1)   If P is unable to prove owner knew or should know – no SL.

(2)   Dangerous propensity is good: bulls/stallions etc – no SL.

(3)   Dangerous does not always mean vicious: danger from size can also constitute grounds for strict liability standard.

SL for animals - defenses

i)       Defenses:

(1)   P’s fault or AOR in knowingly or unreasonably encountering the animal. Contributory negligence itself is not a defense – P needs to assume the risk.

(2)   P’s trespass on land (if not known) = no liability, although owners are SL to invitees/licensees for harms from those animals. Owner needs to post warnings.

Strict Liability

One who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is strictly liable for harm to the person, land or chattels of another resulting from the activity even thought the actor exercises all reasonable care to prevent the harm

i)       Determined as MOL by the court – if not SL, negligence always remains an alternative basis for liability.

Factors of strict liability

i)       Note: just factors – none are absolute or prerequisite. Strict liability is justified when

(1)   the D has introduced into the community

(2)   a risk so unusual in its danger or other characteristics that

(3)   the risk of any harm should be borne by the D rather than by the community.

ii)     Factors relevant to abnormally dangerous activity

(1)   The existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to persons or property

(2)   The likelihood that the harm that results will be great

(3)   Inability to eliminate risk by the exercise of reasonable care.

(4)   The extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage.

(5)   Inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on.

(6)   The extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes.

iii)   Factors vary by circumstance – in some places an activity (reservoir for ex) may be common and not ultrahazardous, but if it is exceptionally large then it may be a SL. Same for social value factor – varies widely by community.

iv)   Frequent minor harms are typically not SL.

Limitations on SL

(1)   P’s AOR or negligent action to knowingly OR unreasonably encounter the risk is a defense – standard contributory negligence is not. (Sandy v Bushey)

(2)   D not SL to trespassers, but is to invitees/licensees.

(3)   D not liable for abnormally sensitive injuries that occur, or those that occur in ways that are unexpected from the characteristic aspects of the hazardous activity (Foster v Preston Mill).

(4)   D may not be liable for SL if unforeseeable acts of nature (abnormal/unusual hurricane) causes the harm (i.e., nuclear plant dikes overwhelmed by 500 year flood). In similar fashion, a third party’s action that causes harm via D’s hazardous condition generally will not be strict liability.

(5)   Official govt action MAY sanction some activity (i.e., a zoo) but abnormal actions by parties in contract with govt still can be liable for SL.