Torts, Ch. 10

domitae naturae =

"domesticated nature"; domestic/tame animal (livestock, dogs, cats, etc.)

ferae naturae =

"wild nature"; wildlife (deer, bison, elk, snakes, bees, etc.); wild animal

Ch. 10 introduces . . .

- absolute liability as it relates to animal owners (wildlife and domestic with vicious propensities) - abnormally dangerous activities - mass torts - proximate cause - class actions

DEFENSES to Animal Absolute Liability:

1. Assumption of Risk 2. Contributory Negligence 3. Comparative Negligence 4. Consent 5. Self-Defense 6. Defense of Others

Public Policy Objectives:

1. Under absolute liability, society (through legislatures and courts) has decided to place the risk of liability on the person engaged in certain activities. 2. Theoretically, these tortfeasors are in the best position to protect against injuries to innocent victims through insurance, spreading liability costs across many product purchases, and so forth.

Criteria for Absolute/Strict Liability of Abnormally Dangerous Activities:

1. abnormally dangerous activity creates a high risk of substantial injury to victim or victim's property 2. risk cannot be removed through the use of reasonable care 3. the activity or substance is not commonly undertaken or used (Common Usage Principle) 4. the activity is inappropriately undertaken in a place where the victim was harmed 5. hazards created by the activity outweigh any benefits the activity brings to the community

DEFENSES to Animal Absolute Liability?

1. assumed risk of encountering wild animals or vicious domestic animals 2. by encountering wild animals or vicious domestic animals, the victim is contributorily negligent. 3. same 4. victim of the wild animal or vicious domestic animal attack consent to the encounter that caused the injuries (e.g., training police dogs to attack criminals) 5. owner of wild animal or vicious domestic animal may use the animal for self-defense 6. owner of wild animal or vicious domestic animal may use the animal for defense of others

Elements of Wild Animal Ownership:

1. person controlling the wild animal (exercising dominion and control) becomes the legal owner of the beast 2. if the wildlife escapes control, then the former possessor loses ownership until the animal is recaptured by them

DEFENSES to Abnormally Dangerous Activities:

1. statutes protect certain ultrahazardous activity from strict liability (protects public utilities distributing electricity or natural gas, private contractors performing public work, highway repair, municipal zoos) 2. public policy justifications (courts perform benefit-balancing analysis, asking whether benefits of abnormally dangerous activities protected by statutes or common law outweigh the risks created

activities inherently perilous due to actions or devices involved; ultrahazardous activities =

Abnormally Dangerous Activities

If the tortfeasor can use reasonable care to eliminate the risk of harm, then the activity is not abnormally dangers, and strict liability does NOT apply.

Abnormally dangerous activities and substances are not commonly undertaken in everyday life.

legal action brought by a smaller group of Plaintiffs who were harmed =

Class Action

activities/substances that are outside of common, everyday occurrence or usage (explosives, toxic chemicals, poisonous gases) =

Common Usage Principle

doctrine in strict liability cases that defines abnormally dangerous activities and substances as those not commonly undertaken or used in everyday life =

Common Usage Principle

Whether a certain substance is dangerous depends on how it is being used.

Defenses to Abnormally Dangerous Activities: statutes (shield public utilities) and public policy objectives (People engaged in certain dangerous activities should bear the risk of liability)

Most states have these statutes that determine an owner's liability and available defenses in dog-bite cases =

Dog-Bite Statutes

How does strict liability differ from Negligence Torts and Intentional Torts?

Fault is unnecessary to establish in liability!

when a large group of people are injured as a result of a single tortious act =

Mass Tort

There is NO duty of reasonable care in strict liability cases!

Negligence is irrelevant.

Vicious Propensity Rule:

Owners are absolutely liable for injuries caused by their domestic animals only when those animals have vicious propensities!

Proximate cause in absolute liability cases is the same as in negligence cases.

Plaintiff's injuries must have been reasonably foreseeable consequences of Defendant's actions.

Fault is unnecessary to prove liability in strict liability actions.

Products liability is a form of strict liability.

Scope of Liability =

Proximate Cause

What Restatement discusses abnormally dangerous activities?

Restatement (Second) of Torts 520

holds tortfeasor responsible for misconduct, regardless of fault =

Strict (Absolute) Liability

Products liability is the primary subject of Strict Liability.

Strict Liability is the legal responsibility for damage or injury even if I am not at fault or negligent.

It is society's decision that those owning wild animals, using explosives, and manufacturing defective products are in the best economic position to pay for Plaintiff's injuries arising from these activities.

Strict Liability resembles insurance. Defendants are insuring the safety of Plaintiffs who come into contact with ultrahazards that are dangers by their very nature!

A tortfeasor is strictly liable just for doing something specific that ended up hurting the victim.

Strict liability is therefore extremely limited to abnormally dangerous tasks, wild animals, defectively manufactured products, and ultrahazards.

Ancient English common law held owners of animals, slaves, or objects absolutely liable when these "property" items caused the death of another person!

The object because a deodand (thing to be given ti God) because it killed someone and was seized by the courts of chancery and placed into God's service through the church. King's courts seized deodanss for the crown's uses.

The animals or abnormally dangerous activities must proximately have caused the victim's injuries.

The victim MUST have been a foreseeable Plaintiff.

a domestic animal's ferocious behavior, as displayed through past biting or attack episodes, in which the animal has hurt people or property; animal with reputation for viciousness =

Vicious Propensity

doctrine in absolute liability cases involving domestic animals; normally owners of domestic pets are not strictly liable, unless the animals routinely shows viciousness and hurts a person or property =

Vicious Propensity Rule

wild animal owner is strictly liable for injuries caused by their wild animals =

absolute liability (wild animal owner's liability)

ultrahazardous =

activities or objects that are by their very nature extremely hazardous to persons or property

Liability is created by the courts and legislatures to protect who?

consumers

legal ownership plus full actual control over something = power or authority to direct or oversee =

dominion control

owners are liable for injuries caused by their domestic animals only based on other torts, such as negligence or intentional torts like assault, battery, and false imprisonment (owner intentionally orders dog to attack victim) =

ordinary liability rule

How has English and American common law evolved to hold tortfeasors absolutely liable to victims?

tortfeasor is forced to pay damages directly to the injured party!

Examples of ultrahazardous/abnormally dangerous activities?

use of explosives, flammable substances, noxious gases, poison, electricity, natural gas, water supplied through unprotected utility lines

What activities/situations is strict liability restricted to?

wild/vicious animals, ultrahazardous materials, defective products