Jane A. Black Torts II Outline

Jane A. Black Torts II Outline - Torts II Outline Spring...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Torts II Outline Spring 2006 Professor Joseph By Jane A. Black I. STRICT LIABILITY A. GENERAL 1. Strict Liability torts are torts where no fault is required 1. You don’t need to show negligence 2. You don’t need to show intent 2. Policy Theory 1. Responsibility for a risk of harm should be imposed on those who create abnormal risks of harm for their neighbors B. NON-NATURAL HAZARDS 1. Common Law Rule- A person who for his own purposes brings on his land anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape (you put something on your property it causes injury you pay) 2. Must Be Non-Natural Use 1. Look to character of the object or activity 2. AND manner and place in which it is maintained. a. Natural Uses 1. D has reservoir on his land and rain causes it to overflow D not strictly liable 2. Using land or features the way they are- pond for fishing D not strictly liable b. Non-Natural Uses 1. If D puts water in land and the water seeps down into other’s property D strictly liable 2. Altering land for a certain purpose- building a house on land D strictly liable 3. Rylands v. Fletcher- Reservoir on D’s land breaks and floods P’s mine D, as owner and builder of reservoir, is strictly liable. 4. Exceptions: 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
a. D is not strictly liable for acts of G-D 1. Golden v. Armory- Hydroelectric plant overflowed as a result of hurricane b. D is not strictly liable if P is at fault c. Proximate cause can cut off liability 1. Foster v. Preston Mill- no strict liability where blasting at mill caused P’s pet mink to get scared and kill kittens. Although blasting is considered abnormally dangerous, it is not dangerous for its potential to cause a mink to kill C. ULTRAHAZARDOUS (1 st Restatement of Torts) 1. Definition: 1. Necessarily involves the risk of harm 2. Risk cannot be eliminated by due care 3. Usage/conduct is not common a. Policy- if social utility outweighs risk, society will not make D pay for conduct you don’t want to over deter b. Ex. driving necessarily creates a risk which cannot be eliminated by due care, but social utility outweighs harm 2. Definition is Categoric a. Activity can be ultra-hazardous regardless of where it takes place b. Ex. storage of explosives, whether its in factory or your house D. ABNORMALLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITY (2 nd Restatement of Torts) 1. Restatement Second of Torts §519 (adopted in NY verbatim) 1. One who carries on abnormally dangerous (ultrahazardous) activity is subject to liability for harm to person, land, or chattel of another resulting from the activity, although he has exercised utmost care to prevent harm. 2.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/18/2008 for the course LAW 1020 taught by Professor Dilorenzo during the Spring '99 term at St. Johns Duplicate.

Page1 / 29

Jane A. Black Torts II Outline - Torts II Outline Spring...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online