11-13-19 Torts Notes - Leiter PDF

Preview

Summary

Leiter...

Description

Austin Scherer Torts Notes IV. Strict Liability A. Animals a. Trespassing Animals i. The case of animals straying from a highway on which they were lawfully being driven ii. Fencing out statues, which provided that if the plaintiff fenced his land properly there was strict liability when animals broke through the fence iii. Some states animals are permitted to run at large unless a county adopts a “fencing in” or a “fencing out” ordinance b. Wild Animals i. Possessor of a non-domesticated animal was subject to strict liability if the animal injured anyone ii. The customs of the community influence the determination of whether it is domesticated iii. The majority American position has followed the rule of strict liability in regard to wild animals c. Domestic Animals i. The common law rule is that a domestic animal such as a dog (or cat) is entitled to one bite ii. If the owner knows or has reason to know that a domestic animal has vicious propensities, this is sufficient to classify that animal with wild ones and thus to impose strict liability iii. If the plaintiff is unable to prove that the owner knew or should have known of a domestic animal’s dangerous propensities, then strict liability does not apply, and the plaintiff must prove negligence in order to recover iv. Liability also is affected by statutory provisions requiring dogs to be muzzled or leashed B. Abnormally Dangerous Activities a. Rylands v. Fletcher i. Bursting dams were a particular problem at the time and that events had prompted public inquiries and legislation concerning the liability of dam owners. ii. The distinction between natural and non-natural use has enabled the courts to infuse notions of social and economic needs prevailing at a given time and place iii. It is too much to ask an innocent neighbor to bear the burden thrust upon him as a consequence of an abnormal use of the land next door b. Miller v. Civil Constructors, Inc. i. Ultrahazardous-necessarily involves a risk of serious harm to the persons, land, or chattels of others which cannot be eliminated by the exercise of the utmost care and is not a matter of common usages c. Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.

Austin Scherer Torts Notes IV. Strict Liability i. Activities abnormally dangerous include transportation and storage of toxic chemicals and inflammable liquids, pile driving, crop dusting, fumigation with toxic gases, testing of rockets, fireworks display, operation of a plutonium production facility… ii. Common Usage 1. Strict liability usually does not arise with issues of common usage iii. Inappropriate for the Location 1. Can be explained on the basis of the location of the activity iv. Aviation-Ground Damage 1. This view is no longer justified in light of the safety record of air travel if the basis is an ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous activity and most court have retreated to a negligence standard v. Policy Behind the Imposition of Strict Liability 1. Is required to pay its way by compensating for the harm it causes because of its special, abnormal and dangerous character C. Limitations on Strict Liability a. Foster v. Preston Mill Co. b. Golden v. Amory c. Sandy v. Bushey i....