TORTS II
Course Outline
I. STRICT LIABILITY
a. Background
i. With strict liability, don’t care about an actor’s state of mind. Activity is so dangerous; liability exists regardless of an actor’s state of mind.
ii. Focused on D’s act itself
1. Act – look at activity itself
a. Ultra-hazardous or abnormally dangerous
i. Example – the mere act of owning a pit bull
ii. But – is a tiger in a circus act abnormally dangerous? Or – how about the manufacture of handguns
1. If classify these activities as abnormally dangerous, could cause industries to go out of business
2. Cause – did the activity cause the harm?
3. Damage
4. Intent – not relevant
iii. Origin – focused on acts involving land; unnatural use of land
iv. Now – what is an abnormally dangerous activity?
v. Main arguments behind strict liability are social policy arguments
Rylands
i. D = filling reservoir; P = digging mineshafts
1. D did not know about the old mineshafts
2. P – Does not matter how careful the D is, D is responsible for the damage.
ii. What is it that makes the activity abnormally dangerous?
1. Rule (p. 689)
a. Person is doing activity to benefit himself (own purposes)
b. Brings on his land (collects and keeps there) something foreign
i. Alters the land
c. Something that is likely to do mischief if it escapes
i. D responsible for all damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
1. Not responsible for everything – responsible for what is foreseeable
2. Three defenses to strict liability claims
a. P at fault
b. Vis major
c. Act of God
iii. Rylands – you reap the benefit of the activity but may also reap the loss if an injury
1. If you had not out reservoir on land, nothing would have happened
iv. Would matter which business is there first – could impact who is introducing the abnormally dangerous activity
1. Later the mine comes into practice, the more the mill owner can argue it was not subject to strict liability
Langan
i. Langan – organic farmers
ii. Valicopters – crop dusters; sprayed Langan’s produce with pesticide
iii. Result – Langan’s:
1. Decertified
2. Can’t sell produce for higher price
3. Maybe can’t find market
iv. Valicopters – accidental spraying; no intentional tort. Did a good job; can’t control. Weren’t negligent; used reasonable care.
v. Langan – asserts that crop dusting is abnormally dangerous – subject to strict liability. First, need to determine what is the activity subject to strict liability
1. Activity = crop dusting next to organically grown crop
2. Court employs factors test – combination of numbers and weight to determine if activity is abnormally dangerous. 6-prong test: presence to a great enough degree that it tips the balance from dangerous to abnormally dangerous. Elements:
a. High degree of risk – drift of the chemical is virtually unpredictable. Impossible to eliminate the drift. Unpredictable – elements / mechanical can contribute to pesticides spreading to organic farm. Uncertain and uncontrollable factors – beyond human control – more likely that high degree of risk to property, chattels of another.
i. Element: met.
b. Likelihood that harm will be great – in this case, economic damage caused b
ity. Q is – who should pay the loss caused by pesticides? Spread costs over large group of consumers – should have ability to assume liability. Langan’s have been taken out of organic farming through no fault of their own.
i. Element: met
3. In applying this rule, must go back and balance. This is not a checklist test – may not always meet each factor, although this is the case here.
4. Once P establishes that activity is abnormally dangerous, have to prove damages and causation.
a. Causation – link between act and damage
Foster
i. Damages – loss of mink kittens.
ii. Cause – vibrations caused mink to get upset, which caused them to kill their young.
iii. The damages?
1. What are typical injuries caused by blasting?
a. Hit by flying debris
b. Structural, vibration damage
iv. Court – Strict liability applies for harm resulting thereto from that, which makes the activity ultrahazardous. [That which makes the activity ultrahazardous must cause the damages].
1. Here – court says cannot look outside your own property for recovery. Why does the court use this standard? Concern about limiting liability. But also, for who is injury most foreseeable? For mink farmer it is more foreseeable
2. Court is looking for clear line between blast and effect – in the case of the mink, clearly falls on the other side of the line.
D’s duty to insure safety extends only to certain consequences. The policy of the law does not impose the rule of strict liability to protect against harms incidental to P’s extraordinary and unusual use
