STRICT LIABILITY
* Liability without fault.
* Liability based on neither intent nor negligence.
* Under strict liability, an actor which proximately causes accidental losses is
exposed to liability for all of those losses, regardless of whether he exercised
reasonable care, even if he did everything anyone could have done to prevent the
accident.
* Questions to keep in mind in strict liability:
1. What are preconditions for determining what is an abnormally dangerous
activity?
2. Is this really different from negligence.
3. If different from negligence, why does the law picking certain situations to
hold people liable without fault?
A. ANIMALS
1. GENERALLY
* The owner of Livestock or other animals is liable for property damage caused
by them if they Trespass on another's land.
* This applies even if the owner took the utmost care in preventing their
escape.
* This applies only to livestock, wild & domesticated animals are not
included.
* Generally, dog owners are primary group. Liability if knew or should
have known that the dog is dangerous 484-485. Rules are modified by
statute imposing liability for any biting done with certain limits.
2.
EXCEPTION
* An owner may be strictly liable for actions of a domesticated animal if the
owner Knew or Should have Known of its dangerous tendencies.
* PRIOR
KNOWLEDGE is the key here.
* The saying "Every dog has one bite"
is not specifically true, but its the general point (though most courts say
there are other ways than an attack to know a dog or other animal is violent.
*
Defense of provocation is used for these cases by D's.
* Note many states
have dog statutes which specifically convey liability to dog owners regardless
of prior knowledge of violent tendencies.
B. ABNORMALLY DANGEROUS
ACTIVITY
1. HISTORY
EX. FLETCHER V. RYLANDS
* Was decided in England in 1868 but has slowly been adapted by most American
courts & was incorporated into the R §519.
2. HOW DETERMINE?
A. Strict liability for ADA
i. NON-NATURAL USE
EX.
RYLANDS V. FLETCHER
Facts:
* D hired contractor to build them a reservoir.
* Subsequently it broke, flooded, & ran onto & damaged property.
Test:
* D is liable for non-natural use of the land.
Held:
* Ds are liable because they put land to a non-natural use.
* Storing water was found to be an unusual use, this may not be true everywhere.
* If you bring something onto the land that may cause mischief if it escapes,
you are answerable for the damage that is caused.
* Was the use of land ordinary or general in light of the attendant of
circumstances and conditions.
* Courts have problems determining what is the normal or abnormal use of the
land. RS §520 gives some guidance in determining whether an activity is
abnormally dangerous...
ii. R §520- factors:
* This codifies Rylands.
* Six factors to be considered in determining whether an activity is
"Abnormally Dangerous":
(1) HIGH DEGREE OF
RISK
* Existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land or chattel
of others;
(2) RISK OF SERIOUS HARM
* Likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great;
(3)
CANNOT BE ELIMINATED EVEN BY DUE CARE
* Inability to eliminate the risk even with the exercise of reasonable care.
* This is the key requirement (Ex. Nuclear Reactors)
(4)
NOT A MATTER OF COMMON USAGE
(5) APPROPRIATENESS
* Inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on.
(6)
VALUE TO COMMUNITY
* Extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by dangerous
attributes.
* unimportant to court's decision about what = abnormally dangerous; already
determined into be insignificant by decision to have liability without fault
EX.TURNER V. BIG LAKE OIL CO.
Facts:
* D let waste from wells into artificial pond which leaked waste into
groundwater.
Held:
* Here, in the state of Texas, storing water is a usual/natural use of the land,
thus, to find a D liable, negligence needs to be proved.
Ex.
FOSTER V. PRESTON MILL
Facts:
* D was a blasting company who caused their neighbor's minks to kill their
young.
* P sued on strict tort.
Held:
* No, P cannot recover.
* Strict liability should be confined to consequences, which lie within the
extraordinary risk where existence calls for such liability.
* Blasting minks is just not a danger arising out of blasting. It is not
part of the ordinary occurrence of blasting.
B. RESTRAINT FACTORS
(i)
WHATS IMPORTANT?
EX. SIEGLER V. KUHLMAN
Facts:
* P car was blown up when she drove through gas from a fallen tanker.
* P sued under strict tort.
Held:
* P can recover because hauling gas is abnormally dangerous.
* If is an activity with a high risk of harm & injury that cannot be
eliminated with reasonable care.
* SIEGLER is followed by most court today, the majority approach.
* R
§520 also list other things to look at:
(1) The magnitude of the risk;
(2) The unusualness of the risk and circumstances;
(3) The inappropriateness of the activity to place & the common usage.
(ii)WHY
COMMON USAGE
* How do we decide if it is a common usage?
* We ask if it is an activity carried on by a lot of people in the community?
* Not too many people transport gas or deal with toxic waste dumps.
* Why
high risk not a matter of high usage? (498-499)
1. Because the creation of non-reciprocal risks,
2. Kind of risk can anticipate within contemplation of the party (488 and Turner
court). More difficult for people to protect themselves against unusual
risks.
a. RECIPROCAL RISK
* People's expectations of what they assume the risk to be.
(iii)VALUE
TO COMMUNITY
* Courts do not give much weight to this factor.
* D argues that to hold him strictly liable instead of regular negligence, will
keep a valuable service from being performed for the public.
* If we do this balancing test, it almost turns into BPL analysis.
3. DIFFER FROM NEGLIGENCE
* Under strict liability, you're liable for all the losses. Whereas in
negligence, you're only liable if you're unreasonable.
* Two
aspects:
1) person negligent for even engaging in the activity, on the other hand
2) in some of other cases, evidences get destroyed, so court holding D available
b/c they suspect there was negligence involve
* Many argue that there is
still little difference between strict liability & negligence because all of
the requirements. They say that it is negligence "Dressed up".
* So why do we have it? Why imposing liability when there isn't
fault?
Why spend money on precaution?
* Because spending up to the number precaution will be cheaper than if you don't
spend anything. In this sense, it's like negligence. There is
certain point where D will stop taking certain safety precaution b/c no matter
what he does, he's still going to be held liable
* At the outskirt, there's implication that strict liability will promote safer
activity than negligence.
* B< P x L
4. RATIONALE
a. Instrumental
1. Deterrence - safety (safer activity if we have strict liability than
negligence liability). Over-deterrence is possible. However, accurate
deterrence - making them pay for only what they are responsible for.
2.
Compensation - loss-spreading
b. Non-instrumental
1. Non-reciprocal risk - not creating a risk by acting unreasonably, creating a
different kind of risk, creating very unusual risk that others are not creating
toward them, so it's fair to hold them responsible.
* Strict liability has
the major benefit of efficiency.
* Overall accident cost are reduced.
* Companies want to spend on safety because every time there "isn't"
an accident, they make money.
* Or do they? It still costs money to prevent accidents.
* Some say that they will spend less on safety because they will be held
strictly liable anyway.
a. COMPENSATION GOAL
* How strong does this pull us in determining who wins in situations where
people don't expect to get injured?
* Strict liability for ADA is confined
to activities that make conduct dangerous in the first place.
