Torts II Outline-JB

Torts II Outline-JB - Torts II Study Materials Jenny Brewer...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Torts II Study Materials Jenny Brewer Strict Liability I. Strict Liability for Injuries Caused by Animals A. Livestock -C/L rule provided for liability w/o fault for trespassing livestock -dogs and cats are exempted bec. They are “difficult to restrain and are unlikely to do any substantial harm by their intrusion.” Restatement 504 Imposes strict liability for the possessor of trespassing livestock unless 1) the harm is not a foreseeable one 2) the trespass by animals being “driven” (herded) along the highway is confined to abutting land. 3) State C/L or statute requires the complaining landowner to have built a fence. B. Domestic Animals -keepers of dogs, cats, horses or other domestic animals are liable for injury caused by the animal only where the possessor knew or should have known of the animals vicious tendencies or disposition. - where owner knows of vicious disposition will be held strictly liable. Sandy v. Bushey : “the evidence discloses facts which fairly tend to establish that the defendant’s horse had exhibited a vicious and ugly disposition at various times prior to the day on which P was injured, and notice of the animals vicious propensities had been brought home to the defendant. C. Wild Animals - strict liability imposed on keepers of wild animals - Restatement 507 (1) & (2) “a possessor of a wild animal is subject to liability to another for harm… that results from a dangerous propensity that is characteristic of wild animals of that particular class.” D. Defenses - contributory negligence/ comparative fault - assumption of risk II. Strict Liability for Abnormally Dangerous Activities A. Introduction P must show 1) the risk of an abnormally great harm should D’s safety efforts fail. 2) the virtual impossibility of D’s elimination of the risk of harm even with the utmost care. 3) a resultant harm to P, or P’s property, caused by the very 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
hazards the risk of which led to describing D’s conduct as “abnormally dangerous” in the first place. Rylands v. Fletcher - Blackburn, “the true rule of law is that the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep if at his peril and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.” Strict liability for non-natural use. - modern doctrine typically includes: storage of explosives, fumigation, crop dusting, the storage of flammable liquids, pile driving, and the maintenance of a hazardous waste site. B. Restatement 519-520 -519-> “one who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to liability for harm to the person, land, or chattels of another resulting from the activity, although he has exercised the utmost care to prevent the harm. This strict liability is limited to the kind of harm, the possibility of which makes the activity abnormally dangerous. -520-> factors that will aid in determination of whether a particular
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 / 30

Torts II Outline-JB - Torts II Study Materials Jenny Brewer...

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