This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Outlines Tort Law Outlines

Torts Strict Liability Notes

Updated Torts Strict Liability Notes Notes

Tort Law Outlines

Tort Law

Approximately 177 pages

All of the notes you will ever need for a Tort Law final examination. Contains notes on cases, Restatements, statutes, the Constitution, and more....

Available here

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Tort Law Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

STRICT LIABILITY

Elements:

  1. Duty

  • Did the defendant owe the plaintiff a duty to conform his conduct to a standard necessary to avoid unreasonable risk of harm to others?

2. Breach

  • Did the defendant’s conduct, whether by way of act or omission, fall below the applicable standard of care?

3. Causation

  • Was the defendant’s failure to meet the applicable standard of care casually connected to the plaintiff’s harm?

4. Damages

  • Did the plaintiff suffer harm?

General

  • When is the defendant liable fro the physical harm he accidentally or inadvertently causes to the plaintiff?

    • Traditional Strict Liability

      • Holds the defendant liable for any harm he causes to the plaintiff’s person or property

    • Allow for affirmative defenses

      • Looking at the plaintiff’s conduct and causation is a common requirement

    • 14th Century Tort Actions – Civil Liability was strict

      • Could only submit answer to action – only say did it or not, couldn’t say did it negligently

  1. & 2. Duty & Breach

If you act and cause harm = you pay

  • Bear the cost of the harm that you cause

  • Prima Facie Case = you acted + caused my harm

  • Today:

    • Wild animals on property = behavior of your animals

      • Also domestic animals with known dangerous tendencies

    • Ultra-hazardous activities

      • Nature of the defendant’s activity is so dangerous and scary, and hard to reduce the degree of it

    • Manufacturers and distributors and sellers of products

  • The Thorns Case (Hull v. Orange) – FIRST HALF OF 19TH CENTURY

    • Facts:

      • Hull (plaintiff) owned a plot of land that was adjacent to land owned by Orange (defendant). Orange’s land contained a thorn hedge. Orange cut the thorns, and some of them inadvertently fell onto Hull’s land. Orange entered Hull’s land for the purpose of removing the thorns. Hull sued Orange for trespass based on the trampling of grass from Orange’s entrance on his property.

    • Holding:

      • Even though there is no legal fault in an act, but causes damage to the property of another, he is liable for the damages caused.

      • Regardless of whether the underlying act is lawful, if damage is caused, the actor is strictly liable for the damage.

        • If the principle thing is unlawful, then the thing which depends upon it is not lawful.

    • Reasoning:

      • Even though Orange lawfully entered Hull’s land for the purpose of removing thorns which unlawfully fell onto the land, he still must pay compensation.

      • Damage is result of his action, because if wind had blown the thorns in that direction, he would not have bothered to pick up.

      • Suffer damages at the hands of someone else, right to be compensated

  • Fletcher v. Rylands – SECOND HALF OF THE 19th CENTURY (#1)

    • Facts:

      • Fletcher (plaintiff) leased several underground coal mines from land adjacent to that owned by Rylands (defendant). Rylands owned a mill, and built a reservoir on his land for the purpose of supplying water to that mill. Rylands employedcompetentengineers and contractors to build the reservoir. In the course of building the reservoir, these employees learned that it was being built on top of abandoned underground coal mines. This fact was unknown by Rylands. After the reservoir was completed, it broke and flooded Fletcher’s coal mines. This caused damage to Fletcher’s property, and Fletcher brought suit against Rylands. Found that the defendants, personally,were free from all blames, but the fact that their agents,the workers,didn’t employ proper care and skill, caused the“mischief”.

    • Holding:

      • A person is liable for damage caused to the real property of another even if his intent and actions are lawful, and the damage is caused inadvertently.

    • Reasoning:

      • Plaintiff has the right to be free from damage caused by “foreign water” (natural water could not have been an issue).

      • Doesn’t matter that there was to intention, because the plaintiff’s rights have been infringed upon.

      • On the ground that the defendant caused damage to the property, which without the defendant’s actions would not have happened, this action is maintainable.

        • Defendant’s innocence is immaterial.

    • Dissent:

      • Here the act was consequential – can’t hold accountable.

      • There was no nuisance

        • To hold as such as above, would make the defendant liable an insurer for his neighbor for acts on his own land, even though he couldn’t’ foresee...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Tort Law Outlines.

More Tort Law Samples