Term
| Most generally, what is a strict liablity tort? |
|
Definition
A Strict Liability tort is one without fault. |
|
|
Term
| The Prima Facie Elements of Strict Liablility Torts |
|
Definition
1)Existence of an absolute duty on the defendant's part to make something safe
2) Breach of the Duty
3) Causation (actual and proximate)
4) Damage to the Pl’s person or property. |
|
|
Term
| Strict Liability and Animals and the animal's trespass |
|
Definition
| liability related to animals is often related to trespassing animals. An owner of an anaimal is strictly liable for damage done by the treasspass of the animal as long as it was reasonably foresseable |
|
|
Term
| What are the two kinds of animals for strict liability torts? |
|
Definition
1) Wild
2) a non-dangersou animal |
|
|
Term
Strict Liability and wild animals
Why is there the liablity?
Does the plaintiff's behavoir matter in determining if there is liablity? |
|
Definition
| Wild animals are considered dangerous and so an owner of the animal is strictly liable for any damage caused by that animal) (includes longhorns and steers) as long as the person who was injured did nothing to bring about or exacerbate the injury the owner will be held liable b/c there is a duty to make safe. |
|
|
Term
| Landowner who keeps wild animals and his liability to licensees/invitees |
|
Definition
where the owner keeps wild animals on the land, the owner will be held strictly liable for any damage caused by those animals to licensees or invitees. |
|
|
Term
| Are dogs always considered domestic animals? |
|
Definition
For some dog breeds they will be considered wild and The liability will exist if the dog has never harmed or hurt anyone. |
|
|
Term
| What is the liability for landowners who keep wild animals on their land with regards to trespassers? |
|
Definition
Trespasser will never have strict liability imposed unless the landowner has been negligent. So even though you are trespassing on land and person has wild animals you can prove that the landowner neg then you can recover. |
|
|
Term
| What is the exception regarding guard dogs? |
|
Definition
With watchdogs, land owners are held strictly liable unless the watchdog is protecting the landowner from a trespasser. There is a duty to warn that can be met through signs.
|
|
|
Term
| What has to be proven for strict liablity with animals to stand in court? |
|
Definition
In order for strict liability to stand in our courts, it has to be a super dangerous type of situation either domestic animals that have a propensity for danger or wild animals- both animals that that cannot be controlled |
|
|
Term
| A Hazardous or abnormally dangerous activity- definition? |
|
Definition
An activity must involve a risk of serious harm to person or property no matter how much care the person uses |
|
|
Term
| Prima Facie elements of strict liablity for ultra-hazardous or abnormally dangerous activities |
|
Definition
1. Activity must involve a risk of serious harm to person/proper
2. activity cannot be preformed w/out risk of serious harm no matter how much care is taken
3. Not a commonly engage in activity by the general public |
|
|
Term
| Example of an Ultra-hazardous or abnormally dangerous activitiy |
|
Definition
high explosives used to explode rock along a road that they are trying to expand. No matter how much care is used, there is always a risk of danger because you never know where that rock is going to fly and where the rock might come down and the activity is not commonly engaged in by persons in the community. |
|
|
Term
| Are sports considered an ultra-hazardous activity? |
|
Definition
No, ultra-hazardous activities involve more of an activity where a person is not assuming the risk like is typidcally done in sports.
And sports are something that are commonly enaged in with the community
|
|
|
Term
Aboslute duty with regards to Strict liablity
Example |
|
Definition
In contrast to negligence where you have a general duty this is an absolute duty to make safe the activity condition or animal. It is a duty to foreseeable plaintiffs.
So if the rock somehow manages to fly five miles after an explosion, this plaintiff would not be a foreseeable plaintiff |
|
|
Term
| Proximate cause in Strict liability torts: |
|
Definition
| Defendant’s liability does not include injuries cause by those unforeseeable intervening forces and in fact the majority of courts are more likely to consider any intervening force to unforeseeable in this kind of activity because the courts assume that all care will be taken |
|
|
Term
| Possible defenses for strict liablity |
|
Definition
1) Contributory negligence
2) Assumption of risk |
|
|
Term
When can contributory negligence be used in a strict liablity case?
Give an example |
|
Definition
contributory negligence if the plaintiff knew of the danger and his unreasonable conduct was the cause of the miscarrying of the ultra hazardous activity.
So i.e. some guy runs into a stadium that is about to be exploded and he knows this and still runs into it… the courts will see that as contributory negligence |
|
|
Term
Where is assumption of risk allowed in strict liablity torts?
What is an example of the assumption of risk in liability torts?
|
|
Definition
Assumption of risk is allowed in all states in all jurisdictions with regards to strict liability (i.e. jump into lions den at zoo). |
|
|
Term
What is the main question of law to apply the assumption of risk in strict liability cases?
Example? |
|
Definition
| This is a question as to whether or not a person who is competent or not competent to assume risk (i.e. under the age of six in Florida). This is a question of law for your jurisdiction. \ |
|
|
Term
| What happens with regards assumption in a strict liablity case in state with comparative negligence? |
|
Definition
| In states that comply with comparative negligence, the court’s will reduce the amount of award involved in the pl. knew of the danger. |
|
|
Term
| Can a plaintiff assume risk without knowing? |
|
Definition
A plaintiff must know that he is assuming the risk for this defense to apply.
|
|
|
Term
| Is the assumption of risk for a ultra-hazardou activity black and white? What does it depend on? |
|
Definition
The assumption of risk is not black and white and there is a good amount of law developed that states that risk is situationally specific. You must ask questions to figure out what kind of risk there is to assume.
The defenses will thus depend entirely on the facts of the case. |
|
|
Term
| When must an intervening force occur? |
|
Definition
Intervening force must occur after the motion is already started. |
|
|
Term
| In Strict liablity cases, do acts of god count as intervening forces? |
|
Definition
In strict liability cases, courts are more likely to find any cause and intervening cause, including acts of gods. |
|
|
