Chapter Seven: Strict Liability A' Doctrinal Development

1
Chapter Seven Strict Liability A. Doctrinal
Development
The questions 1) What does it mean to say
someone is strictly liable? How does it differ
from fault based liability? 2) How do you
decide, doctrinally, that strict liability will
be imposed? What activities are subject to
strict liability? 3) Why, as a matter of policy,
are we imposing strict liability on some
activities and not others?
2
Chapter Seven Strict Liability A. Doctrinal
Development
The problem Plaintiff farms organically.
Defendant, who owns the neighboring farm, does
not. When Defendants crops become infested by a
beetle, he hires Crop Duster to spray a
pesticide. Residue of the pesticide turns up on
Plaintiffs vegetables, which he then cannot sell
as organic. Because produce contracts are
entered before the crops are grown, Plaintiff
cannot find a market for his vegetables and is
forced to sell them at a loss.
3
Chapter Seven Strict Liability A. Doctrinal
Development Rylands v. Fletcher

Subject to negligence-based liability
only Collision cases
Subject to strict liability leaking
reservoir fumes from alkali works leaking
privies escaping cattle
Why are the activities in the two categories
being treated differently?
4
Chapter Seven Strict Liability A. Doctrinal
Development Sullivan v. Dunham
524A Plaintiff's Abnormally Sensitive Activity
There is no strict liability for harm
caused by an abnormally dangerous activity if the
harm would not have resulted but for the
abnormally sensitive character of the plaintiff's
activity. Comment a. Since the basis for the
strict liability for abnormally dangerous
activities is the unusual risk inflicted upon
those in the vicinity, it is limited to such
harm as may reasonably be expected to result from
such an activity, or from its miscarriage, to
normal conditions around it and the normal
activities of others. The plaintiff cannot, by
himself resorting to an abnormally sensitive
activity, impose upon the defendant an additional
burden of liability, even though the defendant
is aware of the fact. When the harm would not
have resulted but for the abnormal and unduly
sensitive character of the plaintiff's own
activity or conditions arising in the course of
it, the defendant's strict liability does not
extend to the result, although he may still be
liable for any negligence.

5
Chapter Seven Strict Liability A. Doctrinal
Development Sullivan v. Dunham

Subject to negligence-based liability
only Boiler explosion
Subject to strict liability Blasting
Why are the activities in the two categories
being treated differently?
6
Chapter Seven Strict Liability A. Doctrinal
Development
Restatement Second of Torts, 520 a) existence
of a high degree of risk b) likelihood of great
harm c) inability to eliminate the risk by the
exercise of reasonable care d) not a matter of
common usage e) inappropriateness of activity to
place carried on f) extent to which activitys
value to the community is outweighed by its
dangerous attributes.
7
Assignments
Tuesday, Nov. 19 540-556 Weds., Nov.
20 556-572 Thurs., Nov. 21 572-592 Fri., Nov
22 592-605