Traditional Strict Liability
A. Conversion
– Poggi v. Scott: (new owner of building sold supposedly empty barrels of wine of an existing tenant)
Rule: Conversion: exercised dominion and control over another’s property, the existence of bad faith is unnecessary.
Rule 2: There is an absolute duty not to convert another’s property.
– Moore v. Univ. of Calif.: (UCLA sold patient’s cancer cells) Where plaintiff has neither title to the property allegedly converted nor possession alleged to have been converted nor possession thereof, he cannot maintain an action for conversion.
Rule: To sue for conversion ∏ must retain an ownership interest in property.
B. Animals
– Gehrts v. Batteen: (dog in back of truck, bit kid who climbed in and tried to pet)
Rule: A wild animal owner is strictly liable for the injuries caused by the exotic animal.
Rule 2: A domesticated animal owner is strictly liable for the injuries caused by the animal when the owner has reason to know the animal is dangerous.
C. Ultra-hazardous or Abnormally Dangerous Activities
– Spano v. Perini Corp.: (garage and car was wrecked by dynamite shock waves nearby)
Rule: §20 Abnormally Dangerous Activities
A) ∆ who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to strict liability for physical harm resulting from the activity.
B) An activity is abnormally dangerous if:
1) the activity creates a foreseeable highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors; and
2) the activity is not a matter of common usage
– Indiana Harbor Belt. R.R. v. American Cyanamid Co.: (hazardous chemicals spilled out of railroad car in a station in Chicago)
Rule: A manufacture of a dangerous material will not be held strictly liable for accidents occurring during transportation.
D. Nuisance
1. Private Nuisance
– Vogel v. Grant-Lafeyette Electric Cooperative: (dairy farmers suffering problems from loose electric current)
Rule: Nuisance: a non-trespassory (unreasonable) invasion of another’s private use and enjoyment of land.
– Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc.: (one hotel added 14 stories which blocked sunlight at other hotel)
Rule: There is not right to the free flow of light or air from an adjoining property.
– Rogers v. Elliott: (man rang church bell that caused convulsions in a man with sunstroke)
Rule: Whether an activity is a nuisance depends upon the way it affects an ordinary person. [Objective Standard]
– Ensign v. Walls: (woman was breeding st. bernards that were bothering neighborhood).
Rule: The fact that an alleged nuisance existed long b
A person maintaining a good is not liable to a party injured using the good unless they are in privity. If they were liable, Ċing parties would be exposed to a potentially unlimited number of strangers to the Ċ suits. [OLD RULE]
– MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co: (∏ brought suite for injury and damage from a bad wheel on the car).
Rule: If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger.
Rule 2: If to the element of danger, there is added knowledge that persons other than the purchaser will use the thing, and used w/o new tests, then irrespective of Ċ, the manufacturer of this thing is under a duty to make it carefully.
– Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno: (waitress got hurt from Coke bottle exploding).
Rule: The manufacturer of a defective product should be held strictly liable for any injuries which result from the use of the product, if ∏’s use is normal and proper.
PP: The manufacturer is in the best position to minimize the losses that arise out of general use of its product.
B. The Restatements
