torts question Forum
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 4:46 pm
torts question
is there a difference between abnormally dangerous and ultahazardous (in strict liability)?
- ph14
- Posts: 3227
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm
Re: torts question
Yes. Standard now (2nd restatement) is "abnormally dangerous", which seems to be a bit less strict than the old (1st restatement) "ultrahazardous."hoping5 wrote:is there a difference between abnormally dangerous and ultahazardous (in strict liability)?
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 4:46 pm
Re: torts question
but the third restatement says, (3rd R, 20)
a) Activity creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm ebem when reasonable care is exercised by all actors; and
b) The activity is not a matter of common usage
Which definition of abnormally dangerous governs?
a) Activity creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm ebem when reasonable care is exercised by all actors; and
b) The activity is not a matter of common usage
Which definition of abnormally dangerous governs?
- ph14
- Posts: 3227
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm
Re: torts question
I think the 2nd restatement gives 6 factors to consider whether it is abnormally dangerous. Usually it's stuff like blasting, operating a nuclear power plant, and stuff along those lines.hoping5 wrote:but the third restatement says, (3rd R, 20)
a) Activity creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm ebem when reasonable care is exercised by all actors; and
b) The activity is not a matter of common usage
Which definition of abnormally dangerous governs?
- gdane
- Posts: 14023
- Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:41 pm
Re: torts question
Forks in the law. On an exam, mention both restatements if appropriate.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login