Top Law Schools

R2D is the current approach, right?

So, would you first go over the 6 factors about what makes an activity abnormally dangerous, then see if the danger is one that is to be expected from the activity?

Is there anything else?

not positive, but pretty sure when you start asking foreseeability of harm, you are getting into negligence

I think all you need to prove is the abnormally dangerous activity caused harm

uwb09 wrote:not positive, but pretty sure when you start asking foreseeability of harm, you are getting into negligence

I think all you need to prove is the abnormally dangerous activity caused harm

It says in R2D that it is limited to the kind of harm, the possibility of which makes the activity abnormally dangerous.

Then in Prosser it says "The class of persons who are threatened by the abnormal danger, and the kind of damage they may be expected to incur.."

Thoughts?

I think Prosser and R2d are saying the same thing and that is: the harm must result from that which makes the activity abnormally dangerous.

It's not a foreseeability question tho. If you read that mink/blasting case, the defendant had notice and the court still ruled against P because nervous mink eating their babies is not why blasting is an abnormally dangerous activity.

As far as answering an exam, just do it like negligence per se. Both uniquely establish duty and breach as a question of law. After that go into cause and harm.

koeni082 wrote:I think Prosser and R2d are saying the same thing and that is: the harm must result from that which makes the activity abnormally dangerous.

It's not a foreseeability question tho. If you read that mink/blasting case, the defendant had notice and the court still ruled against P because nervous mink eating their babies is not why blasting is an abnormally dangerous activity.

As far as answering an exam, just do it like negligence per se. Both uniquely establish duty and breach as a question of law. After that go into cause and harm.

good stuff, preciate it.