charlesxavier wrote:But there is strict liability for transporting nuclear waste if the damage is the result of the dangerous condition, right? I'm trying to find an example of where there wouldn't be strict liability for an activity because it is common to an area despite the fact that it can't be done safely.
I wouldn't worry too much. You'll know it's abnormally dangerous, and when you write your essay you'll get two points for the rule. One for saying it can't be safe despite reasonable care, and one for saying it's not common to the area.
Another SL question: If the accident was not the result of the dangerous condition e.g. nuclear waste transportation truck gets in routine car accident, where do we show that the plaintiff can't win under strict liability? Is it that the dangerous condition was not a but-for cause of the accident?