Welcome to Torts Module 2. We didn't have class this week because of the weather, and so we don't want to get behind unnecessarily. With that being said, we're going to knock out Module 2, Strict Liability, in this short video. Well, it's not very short, but it's short enough. So let's get started. Strict Liability, Module 2. What are we going to cover?
Strict liability is a common law legal doctrine that holds individuals or entities accountable for damages or injuries caused by their actions, regardless of fault, regardless of negligence. So what am I saying? There is no intent element when we look at strict liability. Last semester.
Intentional torts, we looked at defamation, we looked at libel, we looked at slander, right? We looked at constitutional torts. All of the things that we covered last semester required some level of intent, right?
The act that was done with purpose or the act that was done with a conscious desire, or if we couldn't reach that standard, then as long as the act was done with the actor knowing with substantial certainty that there was going to be this result. And the one that we didn't talk a lot about was recklessness, right? Because recklessness could also satisfy the intent for torts, just like you're going to learn this semester, recklessness can be a standard of measure for mens rea in criminal law. But all that.
That being said, when we talk about strict liability, we don't need any of that. So we don't need fault. We don't need intent.
And there does not need to be any consideration for negligence. Pretty serious when you think about it. The principles. The principles of strict liability are simple. Risk theory.
What is risk theory? Risk theory states that individuals or entities creating risk should be held accountable for the consequences of those risks. Kind of makes a lot of sense when you think about it, right? What is risk theory? Risk theory is individuals or entities that create the risk should be accountable for the risk, right?
So the concept of strict liability is one, if the defendant or the actor. has introduced a dangerous condition that is not commonly accepted or reciprocated in the social unit, then that defendant must be, should be, only makes sense that they would be held accountable for the consequences of that risk. What am I saying? I'm saying that if the defendant... does something and someone is injured as a result, then the defendant is liable.
Again, we're not looking at intent. We're not looking at negligence. And I know you're going to probably get tired of me saying it, but we're not looking for intent. All right.
So it's almost as though we're going to have to change our complete mindset. when it comes to what it is that we consider when we're taking into consideration whether or not strict liability applies. Now, before we go into the categories of strict liability, if we were live, if we were in class, I would beg this question to the class. Controversies about strict liability, they exist.
Why? Some believe that the idea of causing someone to be liable for damages or injuries that result from them doing something is unfair, right? The fact that I did it, the fact that I popped the firecracker, the fact that I exploded the dynamite. Doesn't matter how safe I am. Doesn't matter how careful I am.
Doesn't matter what notices I provide. Doesn't matter if I do it. And if someone is injured or damaged as a result of it, I'm liable for the injury or those damages.
Some people think that's unfair. What do you think? Well... Strict liability may look, sound, feel harsh. Understand that there's not a lot of areas in our day-to-day lives where strict liability is really applied.
So while, again, it's harsh, it doesn't happen often. Another opportunity for you to connect with your criminal law. that you're taking this semester is because there are some crimes that fall under strict liability, right?
And I'm sure you're talking about those crimes with Dr. Oko. Remember, strict liability is strict liability. You did it, you're liable. Same difference in criminal law. You did it, you're guilty.
But don't get those two areas confused. Don't... intermix them, right? Even though the definition is relatively the same. Remember that when you're talking about strict liability for torts, you're talking about strict liability for torts.
When you're talking about strict liability for crimes, you're talking about strict liability for crimes. Now, let's jump into the categories of strict liability. For our purposes, and what are our purposes? For our purposes, for...
this course. For our purposes, for the bar exam, as it relates to the subject of torts, we're looking at two categories, animals and abnormally dangerous activities. Animals and abnormally dangerous activities.
Okay. So the basis of strict liability for animals is imposed on those who keep, possess, or harbor the animal. I'm going to say it one more time.
The basis for strict liability as it relates to animals is imposed on those who keep, possess, or harbor the animal. So it's not just the owner of the animal. For instance, maybe you're dog sitting, right?
And your dog sitting your best friend's dog. And while you're dog sitting, that dog bites somebody else. Is the owner responsible? Probably be, right? But are you going to be the first one named on the lawsuit?
Yeah, because the animal was in your possession. And if the animal is in your possession, then you're going to be responsible for what the animal does and or doesn't do. Here's my favorite part. Hold it, hold it, bam.
You knew it was coming. You knew it had to be coming. It had to be coming.
Well, that's the restatement. Here they are. So when you look at, I've been using Lexis because I personally find it easier to get to the restatements through Lexis because when you go onto the homepage on Lexis, you actually get options of where you can go.
And one of the options on that homepage is resources. If you click resources, you're going to get your different restatements. And then you can pin, P-I-N, those different resources to your homepage.
And so now that I have the restatements pinned, I just click on where I've got it pinned. But when you go into the restatement second of torts, when you go into the restatement second of torts, You're going to see that the areas of strict liability are covered in the restatement second of torts 504 all the way through 524A. That's a lot of restatements. Yeah, the ones that we're going to focus on the most.
Now, take really good note here because I'm getting ready to. Sound off nine different restatements. And somebody's going to say to me, well, I looked at your PowerPoint and I listened to the video and you only highlighted 506, 507 and 509. And I'm going to say, go back and look at the video.
Go back and look at the PowerPoint. Go back and listen to what I said. Pay real close attention here. Of the 20 possible torts.
that are associated with, I mean, of the 20 possible restatements that are associated with the restatement second of torts. We're focusing on nine, 506, 507, 509. But let me take you back to 507. 507 speaks to the liability of the possessor. when we're talking about domestic animals.
So domestic animals, well actually wild and domestic animals. So when we're talking about the category of animals, 506, 507, 509. But to get a full understanding of how 507 works, you've got to read 507 together with 508. 10, 511, 512, 513, 515, and 517. So don't look at 507, the liability of the possessor, and think that you're done. 507 has to be read in connection with 508, 510, 511, 512, 513. 513, 515, and 517. Great.
Let's slow down for just a moment. What is restatement second of torts 506? Restatement second of torts 506 addresses wild animals and domestic animals.
It's going to give you a definition of what a wild animal is. and what a domestic animal is. So 506a, a wild animal, as the term is used in the restatement, is an animal that is not by custom devoted to the service of mankind at the time and in the place in which it is kept. A wild animal as That term is used in this restatement is an animal that is not by custom devoted to the service of mankind at the time and in the place in which it is kept. 5.06b, a domestic animal, as the term is used in this restatement, is an animal that is by custom devoted. to the service of mankind at the time and the place in which it's kept.
Great essay. Wonderful essay. So easy to put together. A scenario where an animal creates damage, whether that's property damage or whether that's damage in terms of an injury. of another person, right?
And you're having to give the rule of law as it relates to strict liability. And that rule of law is going to have to talk about whether or not the animal that you have in your scenario is a wild animal or whether or not it's a domestic animal. What are you going to have to do?
You got to define what a wild animal is. You got to define what a domestic animal is. That's how you will be able to say that the animal in your fact scenario is either wild or is domesticated. Right. So you've got to pay attention to how the build out, how the development of your analysis has to proceed.
OK. Under the Restatement Second of Torts 507, liability of the possessor. Again, we know that that has to be read in conjunction with others, but 507, liability of the possessor. A possessor of a wild animal is subject to liability to another for harm done by the animal to the other, to the other's person, to the other's land or property. Although...
The possessor has exercised the utmost care to confine the animal or otherwise prevent it from doing harm. We know that. That's why strict liability is strict liability, because there's no amount of harm that's going to prevent the damage.
I mean, there's no amount of preparation. Right. There's no amount of care that's going to prevent the damage. Five zero seven two. This liability is limited to the harm that results from a dangerous propensity, right?
It has to be the result of a dangerous propensity that is characteristic of the wild animal, right? Of that particular class or of which the possessor knows or has reason to know. Think about all the dog bite cases. And I realized, let me just go back a slide, that I did actually have a slide for 506. I read to you 506A, what a wild animal is. And I read to you 506B, what a domestic animal is.
But I wanted to make the connection for all of my visually minded people, wanted to make the connection. There is a slide there for you. I went through it pretty quickly.
507, liability of possessor. What else do we know about 507? has to be read in conjunction with several other restatements in order for you to really understand what they're saying when it comes to the liability of the possessor. Let's go and proceed a little bit with the liability of possessor. And let's go ahead and go down to the comments.
Remember, if you were with me last semester, one of the things that I think is great about the restatements is it has comments. Because those comments will usually give you the definition of terms. And those comments will usually give you context, right? Gives you a better understanding of what that rule of law means and how it looks.
Another reason that I really like the restatement, something else that they do that I think is amazing is they give you examples. They give you illustrations that from my perspective, make some of the best multiple choice questions because people don't take the time to read the details, right? We are always so focused on the big print that we rarely take the time to read the details. For instance, when I give you a case to read, and if that case is in the book, very rarely do you read the notes after the case, which usually give some greater context or some greater explanation of what the case is just tried to say. Yeah, so this sounds a little hokey, but don't forget to read the fine print.
OK, so let's look at comment A of 507. The general rule stated in this subsection is subject to a number of exceptions. OK, subject to a number of exceptions and qualifications, which are. too numerous to state in a single section.
This section should therefore, here's the third time I'm telling you, this section should therefore be read together with 5-0-8, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-15, and 5-17. I'm telling you again, yeah? The phrase has reason to know, which is language. From the actual restatement, you don't remember it?
Let's go back. Here's the actual restatement. 507, liability of possessor number two. This liability is limited to harm that results from a dangerous propensity that is characteristic of wild animals of the particular class or of which the possessor knows. or has reason to know.
The comment explains to you what does has reason to know mean. They tell you the phrase has reason to know here as elsewhere. And the restatement means that a person in question knows or from facts known to this person should know. OK, that's what reason to know means.
Questions. Let's stop for a second. We've gone through 506. We've gone through 507. And we're going to take a minute to make sure that it's. all great and going, going, going feels good.
Okay, let's move on to the next one. 507, again, comment C. One who keeps a wild animal is required to know. the dangerous propensities normal to that class to which it belongs. You can read the rest of it for yourself.
One who keeps a wild animal is required to know the dangerous propensity normal to the class to which it belongs. Why is that important? Because 507B says that you're going to be liable if there's a reason to know, right?
And 507B tells you what reason to know is. But 507 says that you're liable if the possessor knows. 50B says what knows means. 507C says you are supposed to know. You are required to know.
So there can never be a... point to where your analysis tries to establish that the possessor did not know about the dangerous propensities of the wild animal because according to 507c, they are required to know, right? So you've got to read all of these things together. Let's move on.
Restatement second of torts, we are now at 5-0-9, harm done by abnormally dangerous domestic animals. Well, what's an abnormally dangerous domestic animal? Possessor of a domestic animal that he knows or has reason to know.
We've already defined what that means. And we've already established that the possessor is supposed to know, is required to know about those dangerous propensities, right? So 5-0-6, 5-0-7, 5-0-9, 5-0-7 being read in conjunction with six other tools. I mean, six other restatements. Great.
Talk about wild animals. Wild animals. We know what it is because 5-0-6 defines a wild animal. What is a wild animal?
A wild animal. we've read it, is an animal in a category that is not by custom devoted to the service of mankind at the time and in the place, right? That was 506A.
We know what the rule of law says. Now, let's see what the rule of law looks like, right? We know what the rule of law says. Let's see what it looks like. Looks like this.
Oops. Well, I don't have a slide that goes through Irvine v. Rare Feline Breeding Center. So let's talk about Irvine v. Rare Feline Breeding Center is a case from 1997. In that case, the parties are as follows. Schaefer is the defendant. Irvine is the plaintiff.
And we have another person that's named that's Bullington. All right. So how do all of these people connect?
Schaefer lives on a 50 acre farm and she raises exotic animals. Those animals include zebras, tigers, camels, et cetera, et cetera. This is what she does. This is her life's work. This is what brings her joy.
Schaefer had a border. Right, so she had enough space on her 50 acre. lot of land to have an apartment or a garage apartment or something that was living space that she wasn't using.
And she decided to rent it out. She rented it out to a gentleman named Bullington. Bullington has a friend named Irvin that likes exotic animals. Irvin liked exotic animals so much, according to the case, he even volunteered at the zoo. doing lots of animal things.
So this was kind of his thing. Bullington introduces Irvin and Schaefer. They hit it off and Schaefer says, oh my gosh, right?
We are like-minded people. We share the same heart and spirit towards these animals. Feel free to come and hang out whenever you want. It was an open invitation. The facts even tell us that there are times where Schaefer had come home and Bullington was there and they spoke to each other.
Hey, how you doing? I'm good. I'm just checking out the animals. Okay.
Have a good time. And Schaefer goes and walks in the house and everything is great. Well, one evening, Irvine went over to Bullington's apartment. They're hanging out, they're chilling, they're drinking some beers. And then Bullington says, I got to go to this Christmas party.
So I'm out, but you know what? You've been drinking. And Why don't you feel comfortable just staying here tonight?
Urban said, sweet, I appreciate it. Before Urban went to bed, he wanted to go see the animals. So he goes through, up, down, in, around, through all the different places that he has to get to, to get to the animals. I guess he's telling the animals goodnight.
He finally gets to the tigers. And a thing that had been happening was, apparently Schaefer and some of her guests would stick their fingers in the tiger cage and just kind of caress the tigers or something, right? Seems like Schaefer supervised when this happened.
And in spite of the fact that Irvin, in his training at the zoo, was told you never stick anything into the tiger cage, knowing that it had been done at Schaefer's, he decided to do that. Woo-wee! What happens then? Well, as you would think what happened, Irvine almost loses his arm. He's yelling.
He's screaming. Schaefer comes out. She distracts the tiger, technically saving Irvine, gets Irvine in the car, gets Irvine to the emergency room, technically saving him again. And...
He has six surgeries and then some other surgeries later. So there was a lot of damage done. Once he felt well enough, Irvin, Irvin sues Schaefer, right? In his lawsuit, he files early on a partial summary judgment, right?
Basically, he's saying there is no genuine issue of material fact. There is. is no genuine issue of material fact. In other words, there's not a legal question about some of this stuff. Some of this stuff is so apparent, it doesn't need to be heard.
So I'm going to file a motion for summary judgment, get some of this stuff knocked out of the way. And in so doing, that's going to save me some money because what goes to trial isn't going to be as significant. And once I got a couple of these summary judgments in my favor, Schaefer may be more willing to reach an agreement in mediation or arbitration.
And then we don't even have a trial. So Irvin follows the motion for partial summary judgment. One of the motions was asking that incurred risk or assumption of the risk could not be a defense. So hold on a second and let's think about this because we haven't done defenses to negligence and this is strict liability. But some of the same defenses are applicable to negligence and strict liability.
So this is what's happening. Irvin says, Judge, I need you to make a decision. And I want you to make the decision now that says that assumption of the risk. is not an applicable defense because I'm suing Schaefer under strict liability.
I am pretty sure that Schaefer is going to say that I assume the risk, right? And so I assume the risk that's being used as a defense against me. I want the court to make the decision right now that incurring the risk or assuming the risk is not a defense. to strict liability.
So when I say hold her strictly liable, she can't come back and say you assume the risk, right? That's what he wanted. The judge didn't give it to him.
Judge denied the partial summary judgment. Irvine appealed. Irvine appealed on the matter of defenses because Irvine.
wanted to argue that there are no defenses available, right? If you did it, you're liable for it. But remember, when we talked about intentional torts, remember when we talked about intentional torts, I have the intent to hit you in your throat, right? So my intent is to cause you harm.
Got it? I am going to hit you with the purpose of causing you harm. I'm hitting you with the purpose of offending you, right? So my act is to throw a punch.
I'm throwing the punch with the desire to cause contact with you that's harmful or offensive. Did I just commit the battery? I sure did. Is there a defense that would allow me not to be held liable even though I just did the thing?
Sure. Well, what's the defense that does that? Self-defense. Oh, I can establish that, right? If that person can establish that they were defending themselves, I'm def- defending myself, which is why I wanted to hit you in the throat, right?
You got to get them in my soft tissue, soft tissue, hit them in the eye, hit them in the throat, right? You got to get it where it's going to hurt, right? Same deal with strict liability. If you've done the deed, you are liable, right? Right.
Unless there's a defense. What's the defenses for strict liability? What we learn from the Irvine case is that the defenses for strict liability are contributory negligence, comparative fault, assumption of the risk, statutory privileges, if there are any in your jurisdiction, and if you are a trespasser. Because if you're a trespasser, I owe a different duty of care, right? So you're going to see when we go through negligence that these are the same defenses.
These are the same defenses. So the court said there is a defense to strict liability. And one of those defenses is assumption of the risk.
And that's... what the big deal is. That's what Irvine is saying.
So I under 506, right, can be responsible, can be liable for damage or injuries that's done if I am the possessor of a wild animal. 506A tells me what a wild animal is. Now, 509 says that that damage or that injury must be the result of a dangerous propensity of that wild animal, right?
It's got to be something that the wild animal is known to be able to do. That's what's got to harm you. If you're nudging heads and, you know, playing. footsies with a tiger and you break out with a allergic reaction to the cat hair, to the tiger hair, and that causes you some injury that winds you up in the hospital because you've had this allergic reaction to it, that's not going to be strict liability, right?
The possessor of that tiger is not going to be responsible for your damages because of your sinuses. Because we are not afraid of tigers because they might cause an allergic reaction, right? It's got to be associated with the dangerous propensity of that animal. Does that make sense? That's all I've got to say about strict liability when it comes to wild animals.
If it doesn't make sense, look at your reading, look at the case, look at the restatements, look at... at your resources, right? I think one of the resources that I provided for you guys was TORT's Black Letter Outlines.
It's a really great outline. It's a really good way to get some additional information so that you have some greater understanding. Yeah, fantastic.
Second category, abnormally dangerous activities. Now, there is strict... liability when it comes to products, we're going to deal with that in products liability, right?
So don't get ahead of yourself. Don't get ahead of yourself. There is strict liability when it comes to products, right?
But we're going to address that in products liability. So again, the only two things that we're discussing here, the only two categories are animals and abnormally dangerous activities. So What are abnormally dangerous activities? Restatement second of torts 519. One who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to liability for harm to the person, right? For harm to the land, for harm to the chattel of another.
resulting from the activity, although he's exercised care. Get it? If it is a strict liability tort, there is no amount of care that can prevent the harm, right?
One of the two that you're going to see in most tort scenarios that are tested is fireworks and dynamite. Now, those might not be the only two. But those two are recognized to just be abnormally dangerous activities. I think that's a good time.
Let's stop right there. Let's think about what we've said. Maybe you have some questions.
Maybe you need to take some notes. Maybe you need to highlight something right here. Maybe you need to put a pin right here in case we need to circle back.
But think about it. Now. Restatement second of torts 519 goes on to say in section two, the strict liability is limited to the kind of harm, the possibility of which makes the activity abnormally dangerous. Right.
I've got dynamite. I'm blowing dynamite. And let's see you.
Oh. I'm trying to think of a good scenario. You fall over a roll of dynamite that you didn't see as you were walking through the parking lot.
And so you slipped and you fell and you broke your elbow. You want to sue me under strict liability, right? Because I've got the dynamite. I got it. I've been blowing the dynamite.
I did the deed. Isn't that strict liability? You did it. You're liable for it.
No, the strict liability, right? The harm has to be the result that is possible based upon the abnormally dangerous activity. So you don't think about injuries resulting from dynamite blast being you slipping and falling on the dynamite.
Does that make sense? Same thing with the animal. The scenario, you have an allergic reaction, you wind up in the hospital, that's not going to be covered, not under strict liability. It doesn't mean that if I've left a roll of dynamite and you slip and fall that you can't sue me for negligence.
OK, doesn't mean that you are my nemesis and I put the dynamite there because I'm intending to cause a harmful or an offensive contact to you and you sue me for an intentional tort. Right. It just means that you can't sue me. under the cause of action of strict liability.
I hope that makes sense. And if it doesn't, I hope you catch that it doesn't make sense so that we can have a conversation about it. 519, restatement second of torts, comment D.
The liability stated in this section is not based upon any intent of the defendant to do harm to the plaintiff or to affect his interest, nor is it based. upon negligence. Just a reminder, don't start these essays looking for intent or with negligence because it doesn't go into the consideration, right?
Does not go into the consideration. All right. Well, now that we know what the rule of law is when it comes to strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, What is an abnormally dangerous activity? I know that blasting dynamites is an abnormally dangerous activity.
And I know that the professor said that using fireworks is an abnormally dangerous activity. But how do I independently determine whether or not the activity in the scenario? is abnormally dangerous.
And now that I think about it, I think fireworks might not be abnormally dangerous. So it's like, okay, so what is she saying to me? I need to be able to figure out on my own independently as to whether or not an activity is abnormally dangerous. How do I do that? Oh my gosh, I love torts.
I love torts. I love torts. You look at the restatement second of torts. 520. abnormally dangerous activities.
And oh, this is the second restatement. So my PowerPoint is not as specific as it could be as it relates to this slide. But I'm telling you, this is the second restatement of TORTS.
In determining whether an activity is abnormally dangerous, the following factors are to be considered. A, existence of a high degree of risk of some Harm, right? To some person, to some person's land, to some person's chattel. So is there a high degree of risk of harm? Is there be the likelihood that if the harm occurs, the harm is going to be great?
C, an ability to eliminate. the risk of the harm by exercising reasonable care, right? So A, is there a high degree of risk? B, is that risk great?
C, is that risk a risk that cannot be minimized or managed by the exercise of reasonable care? D, extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage. What's happening right there?
There's that balancing test. There's that balancing test, right? Because we still may need you to blast some stuff, right? If it's part of common usage, when would dynamite be a matter of common usage? I don't know.
Maybe to mine coal. I don't know. I know in order to get through some of these mountains and these foothills and these rocks to build highways, you had to have something pretty significant put a hole through there.
Right. E, the inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on. Let's say I've got some dynamite and I'm going to blow through this mountain because we're going to. give me two seconds because I am going to just take a pause right here for just one second. We're going to pause the recording.
So picking up after the pause, 520, restatement, second of torts, abnormally dangerous activities. Here are the six ways that you identify whether or not an activity is abnormally dangerous, right? We stopped on E, which was the inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on and the extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes.
Again, tort law is a law. that is trying in its best efforts to offer security in the community. I don't mean security from crime, but I mean security from people's unhinged behavior, right? It's supposed to... legally strike some level of harmony in the community.
So some of the things that the community needs are the result of dangerous activities that help put those services and opportunities in place. So there's some level of balancing that needs to happen, but it needs to be done in a way that safety is not just completely disregarded. That's the attempt. Okay, I'd mentioned earlier something about trespassers.
You're going to learn a lot more about this once we get to that module of negligence when we're talking about the duty of care that one owes to the other. And what I mean by that is there's going to be a module where we specifically talk about what the possessor of land, what duty of care the possessor of land owes to different people. What is the duty of care that the possessor of land owes to an invitee versus a licensee versus a trespasser?
So when it comes to strict liability, we take those classifications of status into consideration as well. 520B, liability of trespassers. A possessor of land is not subject to strict liability to one who intentionally or negligently trespasses on the land for harm done to that person who's trespassing by an abnormally dangerous act. activity that the possessor carries on upon that land, even though the trespasser has no reason to know that the activity is conducted there. So wait, wait, wait, what?
A possessor of land who is conducting an abnormally dangerous activity on their land is not liable to the trespass. of their land, right? That trespasser can be intentional. I intend to enter, right?
Or that trespasser could be negligent. They didn't intend to enter. Doesn't matter.
If they are a trespasser, even if the trespasser is not aware that there is an abnormally dangerous activity that's taking place. The possessor of the land is not strictly liable for any damages that that trespasser may incur. Again, when you think about the policy of tort law, it makes sense.
You are in a place that you're not supposed to be. You're not here by consent. You're not here by privilege. You are not supposed to be here.
You are interfering with my use and enjoyment of my land. And if you get hurt as a result of being on my land, Even if what I'm doing on my land is participating in an abnormally dangerous activity, if you get hurt, I am not responsible. That's to a trespasser. 520C, liability to licensees and invitees, right? The other two categories.
A possessor of land is subject to strict liability. for harm resulting from an abnormally dangerous activity that he carries on upon his land to persons coming upon the land in the exercise of a privilege, whether derived from his consent or otherwise. And what you're going to learn when we get to that module of classifications of people upon your land that's connected to the end of negligence, what you're going to understand is possessors of land owe different response, oh, different duties of care to different classifications of people, right? And some of that duty of care might be to find any dangerous hazard.
It might be to find and repair, right, any dangerous hazard. But when it comes to trespassers, oh, it might include find, repair, and or warn. Right. But when it comes to a trespasser, the possessor of land doesn't have any of those responsibilities. Yeah.
Let's talk about Rylands v. Fletcher. Ooh, 1868 from across the pond. Why on earth would I have you read a case from across the pond?
Right. From 1868. Because Ryland's is the birth of strict liability. In addition, Ryland is the basis.
It's the root structure of restatement second of torts 20, 520. So remember what was going on in Ryland. And I can go ahead and leave that slide up. Think about Ryland. Ryland is essentially a dispute between two neighbors, right?
We have the defendants who owned a mill and they built a reservoir on the mill so that the mill could get water that was needed to run the mill. Now, the reservoir was built near the land of Lord Wilton, and that was built with Lord Wilton's knowledge. and Lord Wilton's permission.
Okay. Now you've got some other people coming in. That's the plaintiff.
The plaintiff leased their land from Lord Wilton, right? But the plaintiff was in the business of coal mining. What does that mean? Well, I got to dig under the earth in order to mine the coal. And so the plaintiff with a lease from Lord Wilton where they could go in and dig under the land to mine coal, started to do just that.
Two neighbors minding their business, running their business. Well, the shafts that were needed under the earth to mine the coal ran close to the same area that the reservoir was being built on, right? So you've got the ground. Beneath the ground, you've got the reservoir being built.
And the reservoir is actually on top of potentially these land shafts, right? These land shafts where the coal mining, where the coal is. So no worries.
Everybody's doing their own business. Everybody's getting along. Nobody has breached anything. Nobody's trespassed anything. Lord Wilton, who's the neighbor for the mill and who's the landlord for the coal miners, everybody's happy.
everything's working until it doesn't. Well, what happens? When the mill decided to build the reservoir, the mill hired competent people, hired professional people, hired people that got the job done.
They had the engineer and then they had the contractor who was actually doing the destruction and the construction. When they were digging... under the ground. This is the team for the mill to build the reservoir.
They noticed what they thought to be some shafts, S-H-A-F-T-S, shafts. But maybe they were coal mine shafts. Maybe there were some other shafts.
But they didn't pay a lot of attention to it because the shafts were filled with soil. And the soil looked like the indigenous soil, right? It looked like that the shafts had been filled in with.
with natural soil from where they were. And so don't know anymore about why they thought what they thought, but they chose not to do anything more. Okay.
Everything's fine. We got the rod running. The mill is happy. The coal miner people are under the ground, getting their mining, their coal.
Everything is happy until the water from the reservoir starts to leak. And once the water started to make this path downward, right? And I think that the mill may have been a little bit higher land. And so the water is going to start to run toward the coal mine.
And it started slow enough, but then it built to such a force of water that it eventually put All the coal mine shafts underwater, putting the owner of the coal mining shaft out of business. So the owner, that is Fletcher, sues the mill, which is Ryland. And the owner, Fletcher, is suing Ryland to recover damages. Right.
That were the result of the escaped water from the reservoir. And what Fletcher wanted was the money that he lost. Right. Because his business is now ruined.
And so they go to court and the issue is whether or not Ryland, that is the defendant. Right. Could be held liable for damages caused by the water from the reservoir. The trial court found in favor of the defendant.
That's Ryland. That's the court of extracurricular, right? The trial court found in favor of the defendant.
Why? Because the trial court said, well, there was no negligence. So there was no, the defendants didn't do anything wrong.
They were not at. fault and they didn't reach a duty of care. They are innocent in this. Now, the trial court, I'll say, did note that the general contractor and the engineer failed to investigate these shafts as they should have. And then maybe they would have realized that something else needs to be done because the water would eventually escape and get through the soil.
But that wasn't on the defendant. That wasn't on Ryland. And so the court ruled in favor of Ryland, finding no fault by Ryland, finding no negligence by Ryland, right?
We go up. to the Court of Exchequer Chamber, the appeals court, Fletcher Appeals. You get Justice Blackburn speaking for the appeals court that reversed the trial court's decision, right?
So in reversing the trial court's decision, they didn't remand it. They just reversed the decision. and said, no, Ryland is strictly liable for the escape of the water. Justice Blackburn's reasoning was the principle, was the principle, right? A person who brings something onto their land, which poses a risk if it escapes, must bear responsibility for any resulting harm, irrespective of negligence.
In other words, a person who brings something onto their land, which poses a risk to other people, are bringing that on their land at their own peril. They're doing it at their own peril. And Justice Blackburn went on to find that the escape of the water from the reservoir amounted to a non-natural use of the land because they had to build that.
They had to bring that upon the land. And by escaping and causing damage to his neighbor, Fletcher, Ryland should be held strictly liable. Well, of course, Ryland didn't like that.
And so Ryland appealed to the House of Lords and the House of Lords of affirmed the appellate's court decision that Ryland was going to be held strictly liable. Yeah, that is the birth of what we know today to be strict liability. Now, I've left up the slide, absolute liability versus strict liability, because you may see in some of your reading and you may see in some horribly made videos where they are taking strict liability to mean absolute liability and they're using them interchangeably. No, that is not accurate. That is in fact just wrong.
So please, please Please do not do that. Okay, please, please, please do not do that. There is a distinct distinction between strict liability and absolute liability.
Here it is. Strict liability is confined to consequences which lie within the extraordinary risk whose existence calls for responsibility. What does that mean? Listen to this term and hold on to it because it's going to be part of the essence of the spirit, the soul of proximate cause. And proximate cause is one of the elements that you're going to need for negligence.
Here's the term, scope of harm, scope of harm. With strict liability, the consequence, the damage that is the result, must fall within the scope of harm. What does that mean? This thing is dangerous because we recognize it can do some harm. Let's go back to the favorite, which is dynamite.
Dynamite blasting is dangerous because dynamite blasting can do significant harm, right? Let's go back up to 520. That gives us the six factors, right? Is there a risk? of harm?
Yes. If the harm results, is the harm great? Yes.
Right. Is there anything that you can do to reduce the risk of the harm? No. Right.
So when we go through those factors, that's dynamite. What kind of harm do we expect to see from dynamite? Somebody gets blown up. Somebody loses limbs, loses parts of their body.
Right. We're talking about. fire blasts, we're talking about explosion blasts, that's the type of harm, right?
We're not thinking about a broken elbow because you fell over a piece of dynamite, right? That doesn't fall within the risk of harm. Strict liability necessarily forces the trier of fact to consider what was the risk.
of harm. Let's go back to the dangerous wild animals, right? That... Injury has to be the result of the dangerous propensity, the thing that makes the animal dangerous.
Yeah. Okay. Here's another one. For strict liability, not only does it have to fall within the scope of harm, it has to be foreseeable, right? So in other words, what the expected harm is and who the expected victim is. are, have to be met, what the expected harm is, risk of harm, who the expected victims are, foreseeability of the victim.
All of that is necessary for strict liability. Yeah. And absolute liability, there's no connection to the scope of harm.
There's no connection to the expected victim and there's no defenses. Absolute liability is absolute liability. Doesn't matter if the harm is the type of harm that we were trying to prevent. Doesn't matter if the victim is not the victim that we were trying to protect. And it doesn't matter if it's contributorly negligent, comparatively negligent, assumption of the risk.
are no defenses. So absolute liability and strict liability are not interchangeable, right? Thoughts, questions, ideas. If you want, let me back up.
If you want to go further on absolute liability versus strict liability, you can look at the Foster v. Preston case and that is under the limitations of strict liability, which is one of the readings that's assigned in the reading list. Okay. That is strict liability all done within 75 minutes.
Yeah. Well, technically that would have been two classes. So how do you know that you've got it? How do you know that you understand it? How do you know what you need to pay closer attention to in the event that you don't understand it?
I'm going to post a practice quiz. That practice quiz is going to have questions on tort damages. And that practice quiz is going to have questions on strict liability. These are all multiple choice. They're not essay.
They're all multiple choice. But that's going to give you a good way to determine whether or not you know tort damages and whether or not you know strict liability when you see it. Prayerfully, we won't have any further interruption as it relates to weather.
My expectation is that we will all be at school by God's grace. on Monday the 27th. What are you going to need to be prepared to be ready for Monday?
Start reading products liability, right? That's the next module. That's module three. We're done with module one, which was damages. Module two, which is strict liability.
We're moving on to module three. If you have any questions, write them down. Try to answer them.
try to figure it out, wrestle with it. And if you are unsuccessful, we will take the questions on strict liability first thing Monday, and then we're gonna jump in to products liability. Thank you guys. I appreciate you.
Can't wait to see your faces. Have a great evening. I hope this week has given you the opportunity to have some rest. And to get restored, even though some of you guys lost power, right? There was still some anxiety involved.
But I hope once it's all done, maybe Saturday or Sunday, and it's back up into the 60s and 70s, we can look back on it, say we overcame that challenge, and we're ready for the next one. Have a good one.