Deck 11: Strict Liability

Question 1

A plaintiff who will most likely be barred from recovering on the basis of strict liability because, it will be argued, he or she had the opportunity to avoid the danger.

Answer 1

assumes the risk

Question 2

is an example of an abnormally dangerous activity.

Answer 2

Fill in with any appropriate activity.

Question 3

Owners of wild animals may be strictly liable for any damages caused by their pets.

Answer 3

True

Question 4

Some courts exempt defendants from strict liability if the harm that occurs is a result of an "act of God."

Question 5

According to the Restatement, an activity may be abnormally dangerous if the risk it creates cannot be eliminated using due care.

Question 6

The Western states adhere to the English common law in terms of liability for trespassing animals.

Question 7

The term is sometimes used synonymously with strict liability although it is a misnomer since some defense to strict liability can be raised.

Question 8

A keeper of a animal is strictly liable for damages resulting from dangerous propensities typical of that particular species, while the keeper of a animal is strictly liable for damages resulting from a vicious propensity of that particular animal.

Question 9

A defendant is liable for those damages that result from an abnormally dangerous activity, even if those damages do not result from the type of risk that makes the activity abnormally dangerous.

Question 10

All six factors set forth by the Restatement must be met before an activity may be classified as abnormally dangerous.

Question 11

The courts have carefully categorized certain activities as abnormally dangerous and have considered fact variations as being essentially irrelevant.

Question 12

Preventing future harm is a strong motivator for those who advocate strict liability.

Question 13

Under the English common law, animal owners were strictly liable for damages caused by any trespassing animals, including cats and dogs.

Question 14

Courts are more likely to find proximate cause in cases involving strict liability than in cases involving negligence.

Question 15

A defendant is not strictly liable if the harm that occurs results from the plaintiff conducting an abnormally sensitive activity.

Question 16

Strict liability and liability without fault are synonymous terms.

Question 17

An owner of a domesticated animal is strictly liable for injuries caused by an animal the owner knows, or should know, has vicious propensities.

Question 18

A plaintiff will probably not be able to recover on the basis of strict liability for flood damage resulting from the overflow of a dam after an extraordinary rainfall because the rainfall will be considered a(n) .

Question 19

statutes exempt animal owners from strict liability if they use fencing to keep their animals on their property, while statutes allow property owners who properly fence their property to bring strict liability claims against animal owners whose animals trespass on their land.

Question 20

A plaintiff, whose mother minks kill their young because they are traumatized by the vibrations created by a blasting operation two miles away, will not be able to recover on the basis of strict liability because the plaintiff will be said to be conducting a(n) activity.

Question 21

Why are airlines no longer held to a strict liability standard?

Question 22

Name two situations in which a pet owner could be strictly liable for damages caused by his or her pet.

Question 23

Name two situations in which a court would most likely find a lack of proximate cause in a strict liability case.

Question 24

Name three factors the courts take into consideration (as suggested by the Restatement) when deciding if an activity is abnormally dangerous.

Question 25

Assumption of risk is a defense to strict liability but contributory negligence is not.

Question 26

Are the courts more or less likely to find proximate cause in a strict liability case than in a negligence case? Why?