Strict Liability

Strict Liability for Abnormally Dangerous Activities (3rd Restatement)

(a) Probability of loss is high (b) Loss price is high (c) Risk cannot be eliminated through reasonable care (d)Uncommon activity or manner of activity (e) Inappropriate location

Strict Liability

- Absolute Duty -Liability without fault -D is liable because P is able to show that D's activity brought her within a strict liability regime. P must also show causation and damages.

Behrens v. Bertram Mills Circus (Liability for Animals)

-Dog barked at elephant -cause elephant to injure P - Court held that owner is consider liable for any damage a wild animal causes when out of control even if her animal is tame

Rationale for Strict Liability (for abnormally dangerous activities)

-Economic efficiency/Deterrence -activity levels vs. care levels - -Least cost avoider -Corrective Justice -reciprocity of risk, internalizing costs

Miller v Reiman Wuerth Co. (employer liability)

-The master is only liable where the servant is actig in the course of his employment. If he was going out of his way, against his master's implied commands, when driving on his master's business, he will make his master liable, but if he is going to frolic on his own, master is not liable

Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co. v. American Cyanamid Co. (abnormally dangerous activities)

-Transporting dangerous chemicals through chicago - shipping hazardous chemicals by rail through metropolitan areas is not an abnormally dangerous activity b. How else are you to transport certain other items? c. Risk was avoidable through exercise of ordinary care d. Negligence is proper remedy

Vicarious Liability for employees' actions

-Was the person an employee? (control over performance +) -If employee, was the act w/in the scope of employment? (purpose, time and place, incident to employment and not unexpectable)

Ira S. Bushey & Sons v. United States (employer liability)

-a. An employer's assumes the risk for the acts of its employees which arise out of, and in the course of, their employment -Drunk coast guard cadet was allowed on the ship and caused damage to the boat and Bushey's dock

Proximate Cause for Domesticated Animals

-need relationship b/w consequences and the known tendencies that make animal dangerous -one bite rule

Sullivan v. Dunham

1) D hired two men to clear a tree with dynamite 2) Result of the blast debris fell on highway killing P 3) Court instructed jury that it did not need to find negligence to establish liability 4) They did not have to destroy the tree with dynamite, could have done in a safer manner

Respondeat Superior

1) Means "let the master answer" 2) Holds employers strictly liable for torts committed by their employees in the course of their work

Scope of Employment (liability)

Friendly: Characteristic risk of Employment Majority: Purpose Test authorized in time space and purpose to serve master

Vicarious Liability

Legal doctrine under which a party can be held liable for the wrongful actions of another party.

Proximate Cause for Wild Animals

Liability even for consequences not attributable to the features of the animal that make it dangerous

Liability for Wild Animals

Strict liability for consequences of failure to control

Liability for Domesticated Animals (or other harmless)

Strict liability for consequences of vicious tendencies where earlier manifestation of vicious tendency

Direct Liability for Own Actions (Employer Liability)

Was the principal directly negligent? (hiring, supervising, retaining employee)