Normal utilities SL ≠ Fireworks probably no SL – Poisons = SL Facie Case for SL Duty: Not an is acting affirmatively ∆ Strict Liability: Is strictly liable for injuries caused by this activity? ∆ - Apply Restatements & cases Actual Cause for” test – “but Proximate Cause see below – Damage Proximate & SL Wild Animal Rule: injuries had to be connected w/ the wild/dangerous characteristics of the animal Restatement (Second) of Torts: SL for harms, possibility of “the which makes the activity abnormally dangerous” Restatement (Third) of Torts: SL is limited to those harms that result from the risks justifying SL Intentional Intervening Cause HYPO The & the dynamite truck: guy shoots dynamite truck & it – explodes; people sue trucking co; no SL; intentional intervening Held – cause HYPO The stolen dynamite & subsequent thieves stole dynamite – and set it off 200 miles away; stone co. sued => outside class of persons because those injured were 200 miles from where the dynamite was stored; no SL HYPO The 173-mile percolation: hazardous seeps into ground & – contaminates well 173 miles away => no SL Defenses to Strict Liability Defenses at C/L Contributory negligence: NO; can’t mix & SL & ∆s π’s negligence Comparative Fault: NO fault w/ SL => how can fault be assigned to a party not at fault (due to SL) Assumption of Risk: Yes Defenses in a Comparative Fault jurisdiction Responsibility” “Comparative Restatement §24: No SL the person suffers physical or “if emotional harm as a result of making contact w/ or coming into proximity to the animal or abnormally dangerous activity for ∆’s
Normal utilities ≠ SL Fireworks – probably no SL Poisons = SL Facie Case for SL Duty: Not an ∆ is acting affirmatively Strict Liability: Is ∆ strictly liable for injuries caused by this activity? - Apply Restatements & cases Actual Cause – “but for” test Proximate Cause – see below Damage Proximate & SL Wild Animal Rule: injuries had to be connected w/ the wild/dangerous characteristics of the animal Restatement (Second) of Torts: SL for harms, “the possibility of which makes the activity abnormally dangerous” Restatement (Third) of Torts: SL is limited to those harms that result from the risks justifying SL Intentional Intervening Cause HYPO – The & the dynamite truck: guy shoots dynamite truck & it explodes; people sue trucking co; Held – no SL; intentional intervening cause HYPO – The stolen dynamite & subsequent thieves stole dynamite and set it off 200 miles away; stone co. sued => outside class of persons because those injured were 200 miles from where the dynamite was stored; no SL HYPO – The 173-mile percolation: hazardous seeps into ground & contaminates well 173 miles away => no SL Defenses to Strict Liability Defenses at C/L Contributory negligence: NO; can’t mix & ∆s SL & π’s negligence Comparative Fault: NO fault w/ SL => how can fault be assigned to a party not at fault (due to SL) Assumption of Risk: Yes Defenses in a Comparative Fault jurisdiction “Comparative Responsibility” Restatement §24: No SL “if the person suffers physical or emotional harm as a result of making contact w/ or coming into proximity to the ∆’s animal or abnormally dangerous activity for
Torts-Selmi-2012.docx