Q.
b) Discuss with supported court cases, four (4) elements necessary to establish liability under Strict Liability. (16 marks)
(16 marks, 2013 Q6b)
A.
Basic of Strict Liability go here. Advantages and disadvantages of strict liability here.
Liability that does not depend on actual negligence but that is based on the breach of an absolute duty to make something safe.
Strict liability differs from ordinary negligence because strict liability establishes liability without fault. In other words, when a defendant is held strictly liable for harm caused to the plaintiff, he is held liable simply because the injury happened. The fact that the harm that the plaintiff suffered is not the defendant’s fault makes no difference.
Strict liability for negligence typically involves cases where the plaintiff was injured either by the defendant’s animal or by an abnormally dangerous activity that the defendant had undertaken. For example:
David stores highly flammable propane tanks on his property. Lightening strikes, setting the tanks on fire. The fire goes on to damage Saul's property. Although lightening strikes are an act of God and are not in any way David's fault, he is liable under the rules of strict liability simply because Saul suffered harm.
The elements required for establishing a case of strict liability are:
- duty,
- breach,
- cause, and
- harm
The Thorns’ Case, Y.B. 6 Edw. 4, 7, pl. 18 (1466).
Facts: D was cutting down thorns on his property which landed on P’s property. D damaged P’s crops when he tried to retrieve the thorns. P sued D for trespass and for damages related to his trampled crops. D defended on the grounds that P did not have a cause of action because D was justified in trespassing.
Issue: Is a party liable for unintentional damages arising from an intentional act?
Holding and Rule: Yes. D was liable for trespass. The court held that one who voluntarily does an act that results in damages to another is responsible for the damages even if the act was lawful. Since D’s actions caused P’s damages, he was liable in tort.
Notes: This case demonstrates an example of strict liability for damages related to trespass. The intent to do the act was sufficient. Even if the act is lawful, the party who performs the act is strictly liable for all damages arising from an entry onto the land of another.
Dougherty v. Stepp, 18 N.C. 371 (1835).
Facts: Stepp (D) entered Dougherty’s (P) unenclosed property without Dougherty’s consent. Stepp entered the property with a team to survey the land but there was no physical damage to the property. Dougherty sued for trespass damages. At trial, the court held that there could not be a trespass without some damage to the land. The jury found in favor of D and P appealed on the grounds that the jury instructions were improper.
Issue: Is a defendant liable for trespass even if no physical damage is caused?
Holding and Rule: Yes. Any unprivileged entry onto the land of another is a trespass even if there is no physical damage. The court held that the law implies damages for every unprivileged and unlawful entry onto the land of another even if there is nothing more than the treading down the grass, herbage, or shrubbery.
Disposition: Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Notes: A trespasser is strictly liable regardless of intent or negligence in entering the land of another. All that is required is the intent to enter the land without permission. It is no defense that the trespasser enters the land of another through honest mistake or belief that the land belongs to the trespasser or to another. If there is no actual physical damage, the court may merely award nominal damages (e.g. one cent or one dollar) or an injunction to stop the activity, if applicable.
Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403 (Wisc. 1891).
Facts: Vosburg (P) suffered an injury to his leg just below the knee. A few days later while the injury was still healing, a classmate named Putney (D) kicked him lightly in the same spot. Vosburg did not feel the kick immediately. He later felt pain in the leg and underwent surgery when the injury continued to deteriorate.
Vosburg lost the use of the injured leg and brought tort claims against Putney for common law battery. The trial court entered judgment for Vosburg and awarded him $2800. On appeal the court reversed for error and a new trial was ordered. Judgment was entered for Vosburg for $2500 and Putney appealed.
Issue: Is a defendant in an action for battery liable for damages arising from unforeseen injuries?
Holding and Rule: Yes. A defendant in an action for battery is liable for damages arising from unforeseen injuries.
Disposition: Reversed and remanded for new trial due to an error in testimony.
Notes: This case exemplifies the common law “eggshell skull” rule. A defendant takes a plaintiff as he finds him. It is not relevant whether the defendant knew that the plaintiff had an eggshell skull. See Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. for a case brief of an opinion of the United States Supreme Court involving tort claims for personal injuries. This case is occasionally miscited as Vosberg v. Putney.
Tuberville v. Savage, 1 Mod. Rep. 3, 86 Eng. Rep. 684 (1669).
Facts: Tuberville put his hand upon his sword and said ‘If it were not assize-time, I would not take such language from you.’ Savage sued Tuberville for assault.
Issue: What are the elements of the tort of assault?
Holding and Rule: To be liable for assault at least one of the following must be present: 1. an act intending to cause harmful control to another person, or imminent apprehension, or 2. a third person put in apprehension if he believes the person can do damage. An assault exists even if the other party can defend against the action and the action is not inevitable. Mere threats of future harm are insufficient.
In this case the court held that the declaration of Tuberville was that he would not assault Savage at that point in time. To commit an assault there must be intention followed by an act. An assault is present if the fear is reasonable. The court held that in this case there was clearly no intention of assault.
Disposition: For Tuberville.
Notes: Threats of future harm are insufficient to establish assault. Conditional threats may suffice where the defendant has no privilege to assert them.
Ref:
http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/torts2/StrictLiability/IntroductionToStrictLiability.asp