Strict Liability In Abnormally Dangerous Activities (Research Paper Sample)

Name:
Instructor:
Unit:
Date:
Strict Liability In Abnormally Dangerous Activities
Tort law serves to give a person redress from injuries or civil wrongs to their person, property or economic interest that arise out of the negligent actions of another party. A tort is committed when a person owes a duty to another, that duty is breached thus proximately causing injury to the person the duty is owed to. Based on the elements of tort, it is presumed that we all owe a duty of care to each other. Negligence thus becomes the basis for seeking the protection of the law when an injured party feels that another party failed to exercise reasonable care and as such their conducts have disadvantaged the injured.
The doctrine of owing each other a duty was elaborated by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson in which the “neighbor principle” was set out. Lord Atkins elaborated the scope of who we owe a duty to by stating:[(1932) AC 562, 580.]
You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor. Who, then, in law, is my neighbor? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.
The neighbor principle remained as the cornerstone of tort law for many years even though in some instances, judges had to enlarge the scope of its interpretation to include other tortious actions such as breach of fiduciary relationships. In the case of Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd , the courts held that the plaintiff could only establish a duty of care if it was shown that there was existence of a special relationship that subsisted between the parties.[Hedley Byrne Case, 1964 A.C. 465 (1964).]
The doctrine of strict liability further put emphasis on owing a duty to each other. Under this doctrine, the responsibility is imposed on the wrongdoer with having necessarily to prove that the wrong doer acted negligently or intentionally caused the harm. in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, the California Supreme Court became the first court to adopt strict tort liability for defective products. Injured plaintiffs have to prove the product caused the harm but do not have to prove exactly how the manufacturer was careless. Purchasers of the product, as well as injured guests, bystanders, and others with no direct relationship with the product, may sue for damages caused by the product. The nature of activity upon which a person engages may absolutely hold them responsible for injuries caused on others even when they exercise utmost care.[59 Cal. 2d 57, 377 P.2d 897.]
The courts have drawn the distinction between negligence and strict liability in actions for torts. In the 1976 case of Ferguson v. Northern States Power Co., the Minnesota Supreme Court was confronted with the issue whether the Rylands strict liability rule should be applied to the electrical utility industry. In Ferguson, the plaintiffs, father and son, brought an action[239 N.W.2d 190, 307 Minn. 26 (1976).]
to recover for damages suffered as the result of the son coming into contact with an 8,000 volt, uninsulated power line while trimming a tree in his backyard.' The line was located approximately five to seven feet above three insulated power lines and a telephone line.' Both plaintiffs recognized that the lower power lines carried ordinary household current but neither knew the higher line carried high voltage and was uninsulated. While the son was trimming the tree, a branch contacted the uninsulated line, sending the current through the branch into the son, who fell to the ground," suffering severe burns, brain damage, and the loss of use of his right arm. The jury found that the son and father suffered damages of $250,000 and $28,952 respectively, but decided the plaintiffs' negligence exceeded that of defendant," thereby barring recovery under the Minnesota comparative negligence statute."' On appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court objected to certain procedural errors committed below" and also directly confronted the issue whether high voltage, uninsulated power lines located in residential areas constitute an abnormally dangerous activity for which strict liability should be imposed. Persuaded primarily by arguments made by amici curiae for several electrical associations, the court refused to apply the strict liability approach but instead adopted a negligence standard which requires electrical utilities to exercise a "high degree of care" but holds laymen plaintiffs to "a standard of ordinary care," and remanded for a new trial with directions to correct the procedural errors and instruct the jury according to the negligence standard. Strict liability has precisely in engaging in abnormally dangerous activities has been enforced by the courts in developing and various dimensions since its inception in 1868.[Shavell, Steven. "Strict liability versus negligence." The Journal of Legal Studies 9.1 (1980): 1-25.]
Engaging in abnormally dangerous actions is one of the areas where the strict liability doctrine is applied. Rylands v. Fletcher, a landmark nineteenth century English case, established the rule that a defendant is strictly liable when he damages another by an activity unusually dangerous and inappropriate in relation to the surroundings in which it is carried out. In this case, the defendants, mill owners, were held liable when a reservoir which they constructed upon their land broke through into an abandoned mine shaft and[3 H.L. 330 (1868).]
flooded along connecting passages into the plaintiff’s mine. The court found trespass and
nuisance actions were not maintainable and the case was decided by holding the-defendant
strictly liable. Justice Blackburn in the ruling stated that:
We think that the rule of law is that the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff´s default or, perhaps, that the escape was a consequence of vis mayor, or the act of God.
The elements of an abnormally dangerous activity were laid down in the Rylands case and formed the basis for the courts to evaluate if an activity would fall in this bracket of strict liability. The core of establishing abnormally dangerous activities is “ultraharzardous” principle which entails the activity having the potential of causing harm to the person engaging in it or another party and the activity not being of a matter of common usage. There are six factors to examine in determining whether an activity is abnormally dangerous: a high degree of harming others or the person involving in such activity exists, there is a likelihood that injury resulting from the activity will be great, exercising reasonable care does not eliminate the risk as held in Read v Lyons,the activity is not common, the place in which it is carried out is inappropriate and its value to the community is overweighed by the degree of its dangerous attributes.[Bohlen, Francis H. "The Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Part I." University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register 59.5 (1911): 298-326.] [Anderson, Jon G. "The Rylands v. Fletcher Doctrine in America: Abnormally Dangerous, Ultrahazardous, or Absolute Nuisance." Ariz. St. LJ (1978): 99.] [1947 A.C. 156 (1947). The House of Lords held that: It was suggested that some operations are so intrinsically dangerous that no degree of care however scrupulous can prevent the occurrence of accidents and that those who choose for their own ends to carry on such operations ought to be held to do so at their peril. If this were so, many industries would have a serious liability imposed on them. Should it be thought that this is a reasonable liability to impose in the public interest it is for Parliament so to enact. In my opinion it is not the present law of England] [Kubica, Maria Lubomira. "Origins of Strict Liability for Abnormally Dangerous Activities in the United States, Rylands v. Fletcher and a General Clause of Strict Liability in the UK." Origins 1 (2016): 10004037.]
The imposition of strict liability on abnormally dangerous activities has since Rylands’ case been applied by the courts on many occasions. In Department of Environmental Protection v. Ventron Corp., the New Jersey Supreme Court imposed strict liability for the disposal of untreated mercury compounds. The strict liability in regards to abnormally dangerous activities have purposed to protect individuals who are injured by the dangerous acts of others basically without having to prove that the wrongdoer faulted. This has upheld the neighbour principle that entails each person has a duty to the other.[468 A.2d 150, 94 N.J. 473, 94 N.J. Super. 473 (1983).]
An action for strict liability in regards to engaging in abnormally dangerous activities can enjoy various forms of defences in a court of law. As much as the doctrine aims at protecting parties and providing redress when other members of the society conduct activities that are dangerous, it also aims to cure the possibility of individuals taking advantage of the doctrine to gain unfairly and unjustly. It is for this reason that various defences exist for the defendant. The public policy behind defences is to prevent placing the burden of civil claims on operators of such activities, when society perceives that these activities are inherently dangerous and bring with them an obvious risk of injury or death.
Voluntary assumption of risk is defence to an action for strict liability in reg...