Absolute Liability Only applied to wild animals – Owner or possessor of nondomesticated animal is subject to absolute liability if the animal injures someone Unless wild, owner must know or have reason to know of animal’s dangerous propensity Abnormally Dangerous Activities Deals with non-natural use of land At C/L, if act was deemed ultrahazardous, strict liability was implied. This was nearly absolute liability Courts now reject this doctrine Now, courts apply 6 factor test; they weigh the following risk of harm is great Likelihood of harm is great accident not be prevented by using reasonable care Activity is not a matter of public usage Inappropriateness of activity at place it occurred Extent to which value to community is outweighed by risks 1,2,and 3 require the establishment of evidence 4,5,and 6 on public policy Number 3 is the MOST PERSUASIVE Reasonable Care can’t eliminate level of risk in Ab. Dan. Act. GenRules injury suffered must be w/in scope of the abnormally dangerous activity foreseeable extraordinary risk which makes the activity – abnormally dangerous Prox. Cause question Vis Major can operate as a defense to S/L Unless it is foreseeable D must have knowledge of dangerous propensity of activy Limitations to Strict Liability Assumption of the Risk is a Defense Acts of god are a defense Contributory Negligence does not apply this is a negligence doctrine – Question of Law For the courts – Strict Liability merely Prima facie case It can be rebutted Rebuttable presumption - Abnormally dangerous activities Damages limited to the of the dangerous activity Compartive fault works for S/L as well, operates the same as it does for negligence Products Liability Introduction Can be applied under Negligence
Absolute Liability – Only applied to wild animals Owner or possessor of nondomesticated animal is subject to absolute liability if the animal injures someone Unless wild, owner must know or have reason to know of animal’s dangerous propensity Abnormally Dangerous Activities Deals with non-natural use of land At C/L, if act was deemed ultrahazardous, strict liability was implied. This was nearly absolute liability Courts now reject this doctrine Now, courts apply 6 factor test; they weigh the following risk of harm is great Likelihood of harm is great accident not be prevented by using reasonable care Activity is not a matter of public usage Inappropriateness of activity at place it occurred Extent to which value to community is outweighed by risks 1,2,and 3 require the establishment of evidence 4,5,and 6 on public policy Number 3 is the MOST PERSUASIVE Reasonable Care can’t eliminate level of risk in Ab. Dan. Act. GenRules injury suffered must be w/in scope of the abnormally dangerous activity – foreseeable extraordinary risk which makes the activity abnormally dangerous Prox. Cause question Vis Major can operate as a defense to S/L Unless it is foreseeable D must have knowledge of dangerous propensity of activy Limitations to Strict Liability Assumption of the Risk is a Defense Acts of god are a defense Contributory Negligence does not apply – this is a negligence doctrine Question of Law – For the courts Strict Liability merely Prima facie case It can be rebutted Rebuttable presumption - Abnormally dangerous activities Damages limited to the of the dangerous activity Compartive fault works for S/L as well, operates the same as it does for negligence Products Liability Introduction Can be applied under Negligence
Torts-Prosser-Wade-and-Schwartzs-12ed.docx