Tort Law: Strict Liability and Abnormally Dangerous Activities (2024)

Strict Liability in Tort Law

It is axiomatic that,in most cases, some level of fault is necessary for tort liability to attach.In the case of negligence causes of action, for example, plaintiffs must provethat defendants breached their duties to succeed.[1] An exception applies incases of “strict liability torts.” Strict liability means liability withoutfault. Where applicable, the defendant is liable for harm that his actionscaused even though there may have been no misconduct at all by the defendant.

Strict liability applies in three categories ofcases:

1.Wherethe defendant kept wild animals that escaped their confinement and causeddamage.

2.Wherethe defendant engaged in abnormally dangerous activities, which caused damage.

3.Certainproduct liability actions.

WildAnimals

Because wild animalscan be vicious and unpredictable, keeping them is considered an inherentlydangerous activity. By doing so, the keeper implicitly takes upon himself therisk of liability should the animals cause injuries. A wild animal is an animal that belongs to a category of animals thathave not been domesticated and that are likely to cause personal injury if notrestrained.[2] Snakes, lions and bears are classic examplesof wild animals. If a person harbors a wild animal, even legally, then liabilityfor injuries inflicted by the animal is absolute.[3] This is so even if the owner had no prior knowledgeof the animal's propensity to cause harm and even if the owner has exercisedthe utmost care in preventing harm.[4]

An exception to thedoctrine of absolute liability is sometimes recognized where wild animals arekept for government sanctioned education and entertainment purposes.[5] In those cases, some jurisdictions apply therules of ordinary negligence.[6]

Wherethe animals in question are of a species that can be domesticated, ordinarynegligence rules apply unless the owner knew or should have known that theanimal has dangerous or vicious propensities. For example, if a domesticateddog engages in attacks on people, while the initial attacks might be subject toordinary negligence analyses, later attacks will subject the owner to strictliability because the owner should have known that this particular animal isdangerous. This rule is sometimes known as the “one-free-bite rule” on the ideathat the first bite is not subject to strict liability. This is a bit of amisnomer since even the first bite can subject the owner to liability if theowner was negligent; but it serves, nevertheless, to illustrate the rule.[7]

For example, in a 1969case, the city of Alexandria, Louisiana, was held liable in negligence forinjuries sustained by a nine-year-old boy while he attempted to feed achimpanzee in a city-owned zoo.[8] Though strict liabilitywas not applied (based on the education and entertainment exception discussedabove), the record indicated that the animal had previously bitten off a fingerof an employee and that the city was negligent in failing to provide wire meshon the sides of the cage to restrain the public from approaching the cage.[9] Therefore, the city couldbe liable either on the basis of negligence or on the basis of strict liabilitybecause they had reason to know this animal had dangerous propensities.

AbnormallyDangerous Activities

Strict liability istypically applied in cases in which the defendant’s activity was “ultrahazardous”or “abnormally dangerous.” These terms are often used interchangeably or in thealternative, though the term “ultrahazardous” was more common in older cases,while “abnormally dangerous” is the standard more frequently used today.[10]

An activity isabnormally dangerous if it:

(1) necessarily involves arisk of serious harm to the person, land, or property of another which cannotbe eliminated by the exercise of the utmost care; and

(2) is not a matter ofcommon usage.[11]

While the activity neednot be rare, abnormally dangerous activities, by definition, are not commonlycarried out by a majority of people on a regular basis.[12] That is why, for example, driving a car wouldnever be considered an abnormally dangerous activity. Although driving a carmay be dangerous, it’s not “abnormal” for most people and therefore cannot beconsidered abnormally dangerous.

Thoughnot all states apply strict liability to the same extent, there are some activitiesthat tend to be universally labeled as abnormally dangerous. For example, dynamite blasting tends to beuniversally recognized as abnormally dangerous.The common view is that the extent and severity of any given blast isimpossible to predict.[13] Blasting involves a substantial risk of harmregardless of the degree of care exercised.Therefore, the person engaged in that activity assumes fullresponsibility for its consequences.

Crop dusting, fumigating,other mass use of poisons, storing gasoline, burning fields, storing explosivesand digging canals are other examples of activities that are consideredabnormally dangerous and thus subject to strict liability.[14]

It should be noted thatthe damages need not necessarily include only damages normally anticipated andassociated with the dangerous activity. Damages also need not be limited tophysical injury. They can include emotional pain and even loss of businessprofits. For example, a New York dentistsuccessfully sued for damages caused by six months of blasting near his dentalpractice.[15] The prolonged blasting caused him tension andanxiety. The blasting also caused him tolose two business contracts. The dentistsuccessfully sued for his physical and emotional anguish as well as theeconomic loss to his practice.

ProductLiability

Whileproduct liability is the subject of other presentations, it should be noted inthis context that manufacturers or sellers can be strictly liable for damagescaused by products that they place into the stream of commerce. There are twobasic categories to which these apply:

1.Manufacturing Defects. Manufacturers aretypically liable when a mistake in the manufacturing process causes an injury.Mistakes in the factory that cause screws to end up in soda cans, mistakes onthe assembly line that cause cars to come off the line with defective brakesand rancid food that causes food poisoning are all examples of such defects.The manufacturer or retailer can be held liable even in the absence of anyshowing of fault or negligence.[16]

2.Breach of Warranty. Where the manufactureror seller of a product guarantees (explicitly or implicitly) that a productwill behave in a certain manner, and it fails to do so, the manufacturer orseller will be held strictly liable for any resulting injuries, regardless ofany fault or lack thereof.[17]

While negligence orintentional wrongful conduct is generally necessary for liability to attach, inthese three categories of cases, no-fault liability may apply. Like many legalexceptions, determining when strict liability applies often comes down tocase-by-case analysis. But the general principles laid out in this presentationshould be a sufficient starting point to determine when liability can applyeven absent a showing of fault on the part of the defendant.

Footnotes