Top Law Schools

is there a difference between abnormally dangerous and ultahazardous (in strict liability)?

hoping5 wrote:is there a difference between abnormally dangerous and ultahazardous (in strict liability)?

Yes. Standard now (2nd restatement) is "abnormally dangerous", which seems to be a bit less strict than the old (1st restatement) "ultrahazardous."

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?

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?

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.

Forks in the law. On an exam, mention both restatements if appropriate.

thanks!