Ultrahazardous activity
| Part of thecommon lawseries |
| Tort law |
|---|
| (Outline) |
| Trespass to the person |
| Property torts |
| Dignitary torts |
| Negligent torts |
| Principles of negligence |
| Strictandabsoluteliability |
| Nuisance |
| Economic torts |
| Defences |
| Liability |
| Remedies |
| Other topics in tort law |
|
| By jurisdiction |
| Othercommon lawareas |
Anultrahazardous activityin thecommon lawoftortsis one that is so inherently dangerous that a person engaged in such an activity can be heldstrictly liablefor injuries caused to another person, even if the person engaged in the activity took every reasonable precaution to prevent others from being injured. In theRestatement of the Law2d, Torts 2d, the term has been abandoned in favor of the phrase "inherently dangerous activity."
Categories of ultrahazardous activity[edit]
Several categories of activities are commonly recognized as being inherently hazardous; those who engage in them are subject to strict liability. These include:
- Transportation, storage, and use ofdynamiteand otherexplosives
- Transportation, storage, and use ofradioactivematerials
- Transportation, storage, and use of certainhazardous chemicals
- Keeping ofwild animals(i.e. animals that are not normally domesticated in that area)
- Note that in this context, "domesticated" does not merely refer to animals that are commonly bred and raised in captivity, such asalligators.
- Keeping ofdomesticated animalsthat have aknown propensityfor dangerous behavior (e.g. keeping adogthat has attacked people before)[1]
Someone who is injured by one of these inherently hazardous activities whiletrespassingon thepropertyof the person engaged in the activity is barred from suing under a strict liability theory. Instead, they must prove that the property owner wasnegligent.
In theUnited Kingdom,this area of law is governed by the rule established inRylands v Fletcher.
Determining if an activity is ultrahazardous[edit]
Factors determining an activity is ultrahazardous:[2]
- The relative possibility of harm.
- The level of seriousness of potential harm.
- The level of activity – most persons would not regularly engage in ultrahazardous activities.
- Whether decreasing the possibility of harm requires exceptional measures of caution.
- Whether the risk of the activity outweighs its social value.
- Inappropriateness of the activity in the area where it is engaged in.
References[edit]
- ^The injury, however, must arise from what makes the animal dangerous. SeeAlwin v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.,610 N.W.2d 218 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).
- ^See, e.g.Langan v. Valicopters, Inc.(1977)
 | Thislegal termarticle is astub.You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it. |