Strict liability and products liability - Claims arising from abnormally dangerous activities

Learning Outcomes

After reading this article, you will be able to identify when strict liability applies to abnormally dangerous activities, distinguish strict liability from negligence, and explain how products liability principles intersect with claims involving inherently hazardous conduct. You will also recognize common defenses and apply these rules to MBE-style questions.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand the scope and limits of strict liability, especially as it applies to abnormally dangerous activities and products liability. This article covers:

• The definition and requirements for strict liability in abnormally dangerous activities.
• How strict liability differs from negligence and intentional torts.
• The relationship between strict liability and products liability.
• Defenses available to strict liability claims.
• The scope of liability and causation requirements.
• Application of these rules to MBE-style fact patterns.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. Which of the following is NOT required for strict liability to apply to an abnormally dangerous activity?
   1. The activity creates a foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised.
   2. The activity is common and widely carried out in the community.
   3. The activity is not a matter of common usage.
   4. The harm results from the type of risk that makes the activity dangerous.
2. A company uses explosives for demolition in a city. Despite all safety precautions, debris injures a bystander. The bystander sues under strict liability. What is the company's best defense?
   1. The company exercised reasonable care.
   2. The bystander assumed the risk by entering the area after being warned.
   3. The activity is not abnormally dangerous.
   4. The bystander was contributorily negligent.
3. In a strict liability claim for abnormally dangerous activity, which of the following is most likely to defeat the plaintiff’s claim?
   1. The harm was not caused by the dangerous aspect of the activity.
   2. The defendant did not intend the harm.
   3. The defendant had a permit for the activity.
   4. The plaintiff suffered only property damage.

Introduction

Strict liability is a form of tort liability where a defendant may be held responsible for harm without proof of negligence or intent. The doctrine is most commonly applied to abnormally dangerous activities—those that present a high risk of serious harm even when all reasonable precautions are taken. This article explains the requirements for strict liability in this context, how it interacts with products liability, and the main defenses and limits relevant for MBE questions.

Key Term: Strict Liability Liability imposed without regard to fault, requiring only that the defendant engaged in certain conduct and that the plaintiff suffered harm as a result.

Abnormally Dangerous Activities: The Rule

Strict liability applies to certain activities that the law deems so hazardous that those who engage in them must bear the cost of any resulting harm, regardless of the care exercised. The classic examples are blasting with explosives, storing large quantities of flammable liquids, and using toxic chemicals.

Key Term: Abnormally Dangerous Activity An activity that creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised, and is not commonly carried out in the community.

Requirements for Strict Liability

To establish strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, the plaintiff must show:

1. The defendant carried out an abnormally dangerous activity.
2. The activity created a foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care was used.
3. The activity is not a matter of common usage in the community.
4. The harm resulted from the type of risk that made the activity abnormally dangerous.

Key Term: Scope of Liability (Strict Liability) Strict liability covers only harm that results from the type of risk that makes the activity abnormally dangerous.

Products Liability and Abnormally Dangerous Activities

Products liability is a related but distinct doctrine. It imposes strict liability on commercial sellers for injuries caused by defective products, regardless of fault. However, if the product is used in an abnormally dangerous activity (e.g., explosives), both strict products liability and strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities may be relevant.

Key Term: Products Liability (Strict) Liability imposed on commercial sellers for injuries caused by defective products, regardless of negligence or intent.

Defenses to Strict Liability

Strict liability is not absolute. The main defenses are:

• Assumption of Risk: If the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily encounters a known danger, recovery may be barred.
• Comparative Fault: In some jurisdictions, the plaintiff’s own negligence may reduce recovery.
• Contributory Negligence: Generally not a defense unless the plaintiff’s conduct amounts to knowingly encountering the risk.

Key Term: Assumption of Risk A defense where the plaintiff knew of and voluntarily accepted a specific risk, potentially barring or reducing recovery.

Scope and Limits

Strict liability does not apply to all harms. The harm must result from the dangerous aspect of the activity. If the injury is unrelated to the risk that makes the activity abnormally dangerous, strict liability does not apply.

Worked Example 1.1

A demolition company uses explosives to bring down an old building. Despite following all safety protocols, a shockwave from the blast breaks windows in a nearby home. The homeowner sues for damages under strict liability. Is the company liable?

Answer: Yes. Blasting is an abnormally dangerous activity, and the harm (broken windows) resulted from the risk (shockwaves) that makes blasting dangerous. The company is strictly liable even though it exercised reasonable care.

Worked Example 1.2

A chemical plant stores large quantities of toxic gas. A freak lightning strike causes a fire, releasing the gas and causing injuries to nearby residents. The plant argues the fire was an unforeseeable act of nature. Are they strictly liable?

Answer: Yes, unless the act of nature was so extraordinary as to be a superseding cause. Generally, if the harm results from the dangerous propensity of the activity (toxic gas release), strict liability applies even if the triggering event was unusual.

Exam Warning

On the MBE, strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities only applies if the harm results from the dangerous aspect of the activity. If the injury is unrelated (e.g., a bystander is injured by a delivery truck, not by the hazardous activity), strict liability does not apply.

Revision Tip

Focus on the difference between strict liability and negligence: strict liability does not require proof of fault, but only applies to certain activities and only for harms within the scope of the danger.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• Strict liability applies to abnormally dangerous activities regardless of care exercised.
• The activity must create a foreseeable risk of serious harm and not be common in the community.
• Harm must result from the dangerous aspect of the activity.
• Products liability may overlap if a defective product is used in an abnormally dangerous activity.
• Defenses include assumption of risk and, in some jurisdictions, comparative fault.
• Strict liability does not apply if the harm is unrelated to the dangerous propensity of the activity.

Key Terms and Concepts

• Strict Liability
• Abnormally Dangerous Activity
• Scope of Liability (Strict Liability)
• Products Liability (Strict)
• Assumption of Risk