30Torts

Strict Liability

Strict liability imposes liability without fault — defendant is liable regardless of care exercised. This week covers the three categories of strict liability: abnormally dangerous activities (Rylands v. Fletcher), wild animals, and the common law rule for trespassing livestock. You will also study the defenses and limitations.

Prev Next

Learning Objectives

Define strict liability and explain how it differs from negligence (no fault requirement) and intentional torts (no intent requirement)
Apply the Restatement factors for abnormally dangerous activities: high risk, inability to eliminate risk by care, uncommon activity, inappropriate location, danger outweighs value
Explain strict liability for wild animals (always) vs. domestic animals (one-bite rule or known dangerous propensity)
Identify available defenses to strict liability: assumption of risk, comparative fault (some jurisdictions), but NOT contributory negligence (traditional)

Key Rules

Strict liability: Liability imposed regardless of the defendant's level of care. Defendant may have exercised all possible precaution and still be liable.
Abnormally dangerous activities (Restatement 2d section 520 factors): (1) high degree of risk, (2) likelihood of great harm, (3) inability to eliminate risk through reasonable care, (4) uncommon usage, (5) inappropriate to location, (6) danger outweighs community value.
Wild animals: Owner is strictly liable for injuries caused by wild animals kept in captivity — regardless of precautions taken. Liability extends to harm characteristic of that type of animal.
Domestic animals: No strict liability unless owner knows of the animal's dangerous propensity (one-bite rule). Once on notice, strictly liable for future harm.
Defenses: Assumption of risk (valid); contributory negligence (traditionally NOT a defense to strict liability); comparative fault (modern jurisdictions may apply).

Strict Liability

Liability Without Fault

Strict liability is the exception to the fault-based system. When it applies, the only questions are: 1. Did the activity/condition cause the harm? 2. Was the harm of the type the strict liability rule was designed to prevent?

The defendant's CARE is irrelevant.

Three Categories

1. Abnormally Dangerous Activities

Restatement section 520 factors (balance all): - High degree of risk of harm - Harm likely to be great - Cannot eliminate risk with reasonable care - Activity is NOT a matter of common usage - Inappropriate to the location - Danger outweighs value to community

Classic examples: Blasting/explosives, storing large quantities of toxic chemicals, crop dusting, nuclear energy, keeping wild animals

NOT abnormally dangerous: Driving a car (common usage), construction (can be made safe with care), electricity transmission (common, high value)

2. Wild Animals

- Owner is STRICTLY liable for harm caused by wild animals - Applies to harm characteristic of that type of animal - Cannot negate liability with precautions (cages, fences, warnings)

3. Domestic Animals

- No strict liability unless owner has notice of dangerous propensity - One-bite rule: First incident puts owner on notice; strict liability for future harm - Dog-bite statutes: Many states impose strict liability for dog bites regardless of knowledge

Baby Bar Connection

Strict liability is tested as an alternative to negligence when fact patterns involve inherently dangerous activities or animal-related injuries. The key is recognizing when to apply strict liability vs. negligence based on the activity type.

Cases to Know

Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) — strict liability for non-natural use of land causing escape of dangerous substance
Fletcher v. Rylands (1866) — House of Lords establishing the 'non-natural use' doctrine
Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. v. American Cyanamid (1990) — Posner: strict liability applies only when care cannot reduce risk; transportation of chemicals governed by negligence, not strict liability

California Codes — Official Authority

The statutes SofAI ties to this topic. Use them as your IRAC rule block, then verify the current text on the official leginfo link.

Cal. Civ. Code §3294 — Punitive (exemplary) damagesleginfo
In a non-contract case, a plaintiff may recover punitive damages if the defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Exam hook: Punitive damages need a tort plus §3294 aggravating conduct — never award them for a pure breach of contract.

Explore all California Codes

Baby Bar Relevance

Strict liability is tested on the Baby Bar as an alternative theory to negligence. When a fact pattern involves explosives, toxic chemicals, wild animals, or inherently dangerous activities, you should analyze BOTH negligence AND strict liability.

Week 29 Back to Dashboard Week 31

DashboardWeek 30

30Torts

Strict Liability

Prev Next

Learning Objectives

Define strict liability and explain how it differs from negligence (no fault requirement) and intentional torts (no intent requirement)
Apply the Restatement factors for abnormally dangerous activities: high risk, inability to eliminate risk by care, uncommon activity, inappropriate location, danger outweighs value
Explain strict liability for wild animals (always) vs. domestic animals (one-bite rule or known dangerous propensity)
Identify available defenses to strict liability: assumption of risk, comparative fault (some jurisdictions), but NOT contributory negligence (traditional)

Key Rules

Strict liability: Liability imposed regardless of the defendant's level of care. Defendant may have exercised all possible precaution and still be liable.
Abnormally dangerous activities (Restatement 2d section 520 factors): (1) high degree of risk, (2) likelihood of great harm, (3) inability to eliminate risk through reasonable care, (4) uncommon usage, (5) inappropriate to location, (6) danger outweighs community value.
Wild animals: Owner is strictly liable for injuries caused by wild animals kept in captivity — regardless of precautions taken. Liability extends to harm characteristic of that type of animal.
Domestic animals: No strict liability unless owner knows of the animal's dangerous propensity (one-bite rule). Once on notice, strictly liable for future harm.
Defenses: Assumption of risk (valid); contributory negligence (traditionally NOT a defense to strict liability); comparative fault (modern jurisdictions may apply).

Strict Liability

Liability Without Fault

The defendant's CARE is irrelevant.

Three Categories

1. Abnormally Dangerous Activities

Classic examples: Blasting/explosives, storing large quantities of toxic chemicals, crop dusting, nuclear energy, keeping wild animals

NOT abnormally dangerous: Driving a car (common usage), construction (can be made safe with care), electricity transmission (common, high value)

2. Wild Animals

- Owner is STRICTLY liable for harm caused by wild animals - Applies to harm characteristic of that type of animal - Cannot negate liability with precautions (cages, fences, warnings)

3. Domestic Animals

Baby Bar Connection

Cases to Know

Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) — strict liability for non-natural use of land causing escape of dangerous substance
Fletcher v. Rylands (1866) — House of Lords establishing the 'non-natural use' doctrine
Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. v. American Cyanamid (1990) — Posner: strict liability applies only when care cannot reduce risk; transportation of chemicals governed by negligence, not strict liability

California Codes — Official Authority

The statutes SofAI ties to this topic. Use them as your IRAC rule block, then verify the current text on the official leginfo link.

Cal. Civ. Code §3294 — Punitive (exemplary) damagesleginfo
In a non-contract case, a plaintiff may recover punitive damages if the defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Exam hook: Punitive damages need a tort plus §3294 aggravating conduct — never award them for a pure breach of contract.

Explore all California Codes

Baby Bar Relevance

Week 29 Back to Dashboard Week 31