Strict Liability

STRICT LIABLITY A prima facie case for strict liability requires

(i) an absolute duty to make the plaintiff's person or property safe, (ii) breach, (iii) actual and proximate causation, and (iv) damages.

ABNORMALLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES 1. Basic Rule

A defendant engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity will be held strictly liable—without any proof of negligence—for personal injuries and property damage caused by the activity, regardless of precautions taken to prevent the harm. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 20 (2010).

a. Known to be dangerous

A domestic animal's owner is strictly liable for injuries caused by that animal if he knows or has reason to know of the animal's dangerous propensities, and the harm results from those dangerous propensities. Otherwise, at common law, the owner of a domestic animal is liable only for negligence.

1. Wild Animals

A wild animal is an animal that, as a species or a class, is not by custom devoted to the service of humankind in the place where it is being kept. For example, a wild elephant that has been tamed and exhibited as part of a circus remains categorized as a wild animal. Many states have passed legislation to protect those who display wild animals to the public (e.g., a public zoo), applying a negligence standard instead of strict liability.

2. Definition of "Abnormally Dangerous"

Abnormally dangerous means that an activity: i) Creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised; and

2. Comparative Fault

Courts are divided, and in some comparative-fault jurisdictions, the plaintiff's contributory negligence does not reduce the plaintiff's recovery under a strict-liability claim. Other jurisdictions and the Third Restatement would allow recovery to be reduced by the comparative fault of the plaintiff.

Aircraft

Damage or injury caused by flying aircraft is no longer subject to strict liability, though a few states still apply the doctrine to ground damage from an airplane crash.

ii) The activity is not commonly engaged in.

In addition to these requirements, in evaluating whether an activity is abnormally dangerous, courts often consider the gravity of the harm resulting from the activity, the inappropriateness of the place where the activity is being conducted, and the limited value of the activity to the community.

1. Contributory Negligence

In contributory-negligence jurisdictions, the plaintiff's contributory negligence is not a defense to strict liability, i.e., it does not bar recovery.

4. The Landlord's Liability

In most jurisdictions, the landlord is not liable for harms caused by animals owned by his tenants. The landlord lacks the required element of control over the animal. Some jurisdictions impose liability on the landlord based on negligence if the landlord is aware of the dangerous propensities of the dog or other animal.

c. Liability to trespassers

Licensees or invitees injured by a wild animal may recover in strict liability. A landowner is not strictly liable for injuries inflicted by his animals against a trespasser, except for injuries inflicted by a vicious watchdog. Remember, however, that a landowner may be liable on a negligence theory.

b. "Dog-bite" statutes

Many states have enacted "dog-bite" statutes that hold owners of dogs or other domestic animals designated in the statute strictly liable for damages resulting from personal injuries.

b. Plaintiff's fearful reaction

Strict liability applies to an injury caused by a plaintiff's fearful reaction to the sight of an unrestrained wild animal, in addition to injuries caused directly by the wild animal.

3. Scope of Risk

Strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity exists only if harm that actually occurs results from the risk that made the activity abnormally dangerous in the first place.

3. Trespassing Animals

The owner of any animal, wild or domestic (other than household pets), is strictly liable for any reasonably foreseeable damage caused by his animal while trespassing on the land of another. The exception for household pets (the Third Restatement specifically mentions dogs and cats) does not apply if the owner knows or has reason to know that the dog or cat is intruding on another's property in a way that has a tendency to cause substantial harm. \

a. Dangerous propensity

The possessor of a wild animal is strictly liable for harm done by that animal, in spite of any precautions the possessor has taken to confine the animal or prevent the harm, if the harm arises from a dangerous propensity that is characteristic of such a wild animal or of which the owner has reason to know.

The three general situations in which strict liability is imposed are:

i) Dangerous activities; ii) Animals; and iii) Defective or dangerous products.

three general situations in which strict liability is imposed are:

i) Dangerous activities; ii) Animals; and iii) Defective or dangerous products. MNEMONIC: DAD