This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Court considers locality in deciding if locality fine in reasonale. So that factor amy make that activity unreasonable. Court made the guy move but told the landowner developer you need to pay for some of the costs. Ultrahazard activities Traditionsal strict liabilities a. animals b. abnormal dangerous. a. domestic animals sheep ate plaintiffs grass strict liability for wandering livestock. Only liabel only fo that damage you would expect it to do. If fo some reason the sheep goes mad and bites landowner- not liabel for the bit ( based on assumption no normally bite.) 2 exceptions cats and dogs. Dog escapes and killes and eats your chikens ( assuming dogs do that) for them no strict liability 2) no damage to plaintiffs livestock when wanders off from road and damage is close to the road. If live stock goes on my land and hurts a trespasser no casue of action. Dangerouse animals lion comes and bites a trespasser on my land, under dangerouse rule, yes....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 05/05/2008 for the course LAW 1 taught by Professor Hollister during the Fall '04 term at Fordham.
- Fall '04