XIV. Torts: Strict Liability

1. The existence of an absolute duty on the part of defendant to make safe;

2. breach of that duty;

3. the breach of the duty was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff's injury; and

4. damage to the plaintiff's person or property.

The owner is strictly liable for the damage done by the trespass of his animals (other than household pets) as long as it was reasonably foreseeable.

An owner is strictly liable for injuries caused by wild animals as long as the person injured did nothing, voluntarily or consciously, to bring about the injury.

Owner not strictly liable for inherently nondangerous animal (dog/cat) unless the owner has knowledge of that animal's dangerous propensities. Rule can apply even if animal has never hurt anyone.

Some states have dog bite statutes, applicable only to dogs, which impose strict liability in personal injury actions even without prior knowledge of dangerous characteristics.

Strict liability for injuries inflicted by wild animals or abnormally dangerous domestic animals kept by the landowner on his land will usually be imposed where the person injured came onto the land as an invitee or licensee.

Exception for landowner who has a public duty to keep the animals, then negligence must be shown.

Trespassers must prove negligence, as where the landowner knows that the trespasser is on the land and fails to warn them of the animal.

A landowner who protects his property with a vicious watchdog that he knows is likely to cause serious bodily harm may be liable even to trespassers. (Because landowner is not allowed to use deadly force himself to protect land, he may also not use such force indirectly.)

An activity may be characterized as abnormally dangerous if it involves a substantial risk of serioius harm to person or property no matter how much care is exercised. Whether an activity is abnormally dangerous is a question of law that the court can decide on a motion for directed verdict.

1. the activity must create a foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors; and

2. the activity is not a matter of common usage in the community.

The duty owed is an absolute duty to make safe the animal, activity, or condition that is classified as abnormally dangerous, and liability is imposed for any injuries to persons or property resulting therefrom.

Duty owed only to foreseeable plaintiffs -- persons to whom a reasonable person would have foreseen a risk of harm under the circumstances.

Duty limited to normally dangerous propensity, ie, the kind of danger to be anticipated from the dangerous activity or animal.

Defendants liability can be cut off by a finding of unforeseeable intervening forces.

Contributory negligence is a defense if plaintiff knew of the danger and his unreasonable conduct was the very cause of the abnormally dangerous activity miscarrying. Courts call this conduct knowing contributory negligence or a type of assumption of risk.

Assumption of risk of any type is a good defense to strict liability in contributory negligence states.

Comparative neglegence rules will apply in states that use them.