Figure 6.4
If horses get out of a fenced-in area, the owner would be liable for any damage they cause while
loose. (Credit: Slack/ pexels/ License: CC0)
For a court to assign strict liability based on abnormally dangerous activities, the activity must meet certain
criteria. The court must establish that at least four of the following six factors are present (CCBC Legal Studies,
n.d.):
•
The activity poses a high degree of risk of harm to a person, the land of another, or the property owned
by another.
•
The harm resulting from this activity would likely be substantial.
•
The use of reasonable care would not eliminate this risk.
•
The activity is not something that would be considered a matter of common usage.
•
The activity is not appropriate for the place where it occurs.
•
The danger of the activity overshadows the benefit it poses to a given community.
In essence, the basis for determining strict liability is the extent of the risk involved in the activity. This basis
could also apply to the ownership of dangerous pets. A dog that is known to be aggressive would qualify the
owner for strict liability should it get out and bite someone. The courts would find that the owner knew, or
should have known, that the dog was dangerous and had a propensity to cause harm (Kionka, 2013).
Trespass
In some situations, the owner of the dangerous activity might not be held liable. One such situation is
trespassing. Trespassing occurs as an individual enters or remains upon property owned by another without
permission (Kionka, 2013). In the case of trespassing, the owner of the property does not have a duty to make
the premises safe based on reasonable care for the trespasser (Kionka, 2013). Also, the owner does not have a
responsibility to cancel or alter activities on the premises to avoid endangering the trespasser (Kionka, 2013).
68
Chapter 6 The Tort System
This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col30149/1.5