Black-letter propositions
- 01
Possessors of wild animals are strictly liable for harm characteristic of dangerous propensity.
- 02
Domestic-animal liability traditionally requires knowledge of the particular animal's dangerous tendency, subject to statutes.
- 03
Trespassing livestock rules vary but often impose strict liability for physical intrusion.
- 04
Abnormally dangerous activity considers high unavoidable risk, severe harm, uncommon usage, place appropriateness, and community value.
- 05
Strict liability reaches only harm flowing from the characteristic risk and is subject to knowing assumption of risk and comparative-fault rules as provided.
Use this attack sequence under time
Frame the issue
Classify animal or activity.
Resolve the next checkpoint
Identify characteristic danger and knowledge if required.
Resolve the next checkpoint
Apply all activity factors.
Resolve the next checkpoint
Connect harm to the strict-liability risk.
Finish the conclusion
Address defenses and damages.
Common wrong turns
- Strict liability is not absolute liability for unrelated harms.
- Ordinary contributory negligence may not bar, while knowing encounter can.
- Common usage depends on the community and location.
Worked example
A blasting operation frightens a mink into killing its own young.
Even if blasting is abnormally dangerous, the unusual animal reaction may fall outside the characteristic risk that makes blasting subject to strict liability; negligence remains separate.
Practice this topic
Strict liability in tort
Cornell says strict liability exists when a defendant is liable regardless of intent or mental state. In tort law there are two broad categories of activities for which a defendant may be strictly liable: possession of certain animals and abnormally dangerous activities. It also describes strict products liability as a sub-category.
An abnormally dangerous activity is one not of common usage that creates a foreseeable and very significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all parties, and the actor is strictly liable for physical harm resulting from it.
Origin and common usage
Cornell traces the rule to Rylands v. Fletcher, which said a person who brings on his land and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at his peril. In U.S. jurisdictions courts have not required that the activity occur on the defendant's land. Common usage is a factor: driving cars is common usage, but storing toxic chemicals is not.
The rationale is reciprocity. When many people impose a risk on each other and enjoy the benefits, strict liability is not needed, but an unusual dangerous activity does not have that reciprocity.
Cornell notes that strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity attaches to physical harm resulting from the activity, even when everyone uses reasonable care. That is the feature that separates it from negligence. On an exam, first ask whether the activity is one of common usage, then whether the risk of very significant physical harm is foreseeable despite care.
Frequently asked questions
What is the controlling rule for animals and abnormally dangerous activities?+
Strict liability covers characteristic animal or abnormally dangerous risks but still requires legal causation and harm within the reason for strict treatment.
How should I analyze animals and abnormally dangerous activities on the bar exam?+
Classify animal or activity. Identify characteristic danger and knowledge if required. Apply all activity factors. Connect harm to the strict-liability risk. Address defenses and damages.
What is strict liability?+
Liability regardless of the defendant's intent or mental state when committing the action, according to Cornell's summary of tort and criminal law.
Which tort activities carry strict liability?+
Possession of certain animals and abnormally dangerous activities, in addition to the sub-category of strict products liability, according to Cornell.
What is an abnormally dangerous activity?+
An activity not of common usage that creates a foreseeable and very significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is used.
Why is common usage relevant?+
Because when many people impose similar risks on one another, reciprocity reduces the need for strict liability, so unusual activities are more likely to qualify.