Horror Tales of Bargression Forum

[Tanicius]

Wait wait wait (and I hate to kill the good mood of this thread) but wouldn't this still be strict liability? I'm thinking of a Themis practice question where dude was keeping a python in his house, python was hiding in the grass and plaintiff tripped on the python and hurt himself. Python didn't bite him or strangle him or anything, but it was still strict liability just by the virtue that the defendant was keeping a dangerous animal.

Actually the rule in that case is the opposite. The question was about tripping over a porcupine and breaking your wrist. No strict liability because the porcupine's dangerous nature isn't what cause the injury -- it was no different than having a cat or even a rock on your property. Now if you'd gotten punctured with the quills, then it would be SL.

[SilverE2]

Wait wait wait (and I hate to kill the good mood of this thread) but wouldn't this still be strict liability? I'm thinking of a Themis practice question where dude was keeping a python in his house, python was hiding in the grass and plaintiff tripped on the python and hurt himself. Python didn't bite him or strangle him or anything, but it was still strict liability just by the virtue that the defendant was keeping a dangerous animal.

Actually the rule in that case is the opposite. The question was about tripping over a porcupine and breaking your wrist. No strict liability because the porcupine's dangerous nature isn't what cause the injury -- it was no different than having a cat or even a rock on your property. Now if you'd gotten punctured with the quills, then it would be SL.

Oh boy. You're right. All this law getting jumbled in my head. :-/ I confused a snake problem with a porcupine problem.

*edit*

Oh right, the snake problem was the dude getting scared by the snake and hurting himself, I think. And that was SL.

[northwood]

if the gasoline inside the tanker exploded and injured a passenger or a car, then the tanker is strictly liable because the gasoline was the cause of the accident.

if the tanker simply was involved in a roll over accident and the tanker crushed a car, then the gas company ( for simplicity sake not the same company as the truck) is not strict liable because the gasoline ( dangerous object) was not the casue of the injury.. the truck was...



think about what was the exact reason for the injury... was I thte object inside or something else carrying device. if its the dangerous object inside- strict liability. if its something else( then not)

[jigglypuffdreams]

Wait wait wait (and I hate to kill the good mood of this thread) but wouldn't this still be strict liability? I'm thinking of a Themis practice question where dude was keeping a python in his house, python was hiding in the grass and plaintiff tripped on the python and hurt himself. Python didn't bite him or strangle him or anything, but it was still strict liability just by the virtue that the defendant was keeping a dangerous animal.

Actually the rule in that case is the opposite. The question was about tripping over a porcupine and breaking your wrist. No strict liability because the porcupine's dangerous nature isn't what cause the injury -- it was no different than having a cat or even a rock on your property. Now if you'd gotten punctured with the quills, then it would be SL.

Ugh that porcupine question was the absolute worst. "haha, the porcupine is a wild animal and even if it's not thought of as dangerous, it would be subject to strict liability, they're trying to trick me but I got this!" But the porcupine's dangerous propensity didn't cause any of the harm, and it wasn't caused by the guy being scared of the porcupine either because he didn't know it was a porcupine. At least I know that rule really well because that question got me so angry.

[Law-So-Hard]

You may be bar prepping if....

You switch from hand-written tasks (flashcards, writing rules out, etc) to a computer-based task to give your hands a break.

If you look forward to your "break days" as the days when you tackle a less-difficult subject

When you do Barbri Amps while eating as a break

[harmonep07]

if the gasoline inside the tanker exploded and injured a passenger or a car, then the tanker is strictly liable because the gasoline was the cause of the accident.

if the tanker simply was involved in a roll over accident and the tanker crushed a car, then the gas company ( for simplicity sake not the same company as the truck) is not strict liable because the gasoline ( dangerous object) was not the casue of the injury.. the truck was...



think about what was the exact reason for the injury... was I thte object inside or something else carrying device. if its the dangerous object inside- strict liability. if its something else( then not)

But if the truck company and gas company were separate, the gas company wouldn't be strictly liable even if there were an explosion, unless strict products liability applied (which it obviously wouldn't). The gas company is not engaged in the ultra hazardous activity in that case, the truck company is.

[Georgia Avenue]

if the gasoline inside the tanker exploded and injured a passenger or a car, then the tanker is strictly liable because the gasoline was the cause of the accident.

if the tanker simply was involved in a roll over accident and the tanker crushed a car, then the gas company ( for simplicity sake not the same company as the truck) is not strict liable because the gasoline ( dangerous object) was not the casue of the injury.. the truck was...



think about what was the exact reason for the injury... was I thte object inside or something else carrying device. if its the dangerous object inside- strict liability. if its something else( then not)

But if the truck company and gas company were separate, the gas company wouldn't be strictly liable even if there were an explosion, unless strict products liability applied (which it obviously wouldn't). The gas company is not engaged in the ultra hazardous activity in that case, the truck company is.

Not necessarily. Remember agency law. A principal is vicariously liable for an independent contractor's torts if the independent contractor is engaged in a highly dangerous activity.

[Law-So-Hard]

if the gasoline inside the tanker exploded and injured a passenger or a car, then the tanker is strictly liable because the gasoline was the cause of the accident.

if the tanker simply was involved in a roll over accident and the tanker crushed a car, then the gas company ( for simplicity sake not the same company as the truck) is not strict liable because the gasoline ( dangerous object) was not the casue of the injury.. the truck was...



think about what was the exact reason for the injury... was I thte object inside or something else carrying device. if its the dangerous object inside- strict liability. if its something else( then not)

But if the truck company and gas company were separate, the gas company wouldn't be strictly liable even if there were an explosion, unless strict products liability applied (which it obviously wouldn't). The gas company is not engaged in the ultra hazardous activity in that case, the truck company is.

Not necessarily. Remember agency law. A principal is vicariously liable for an independent contractor's torts if the independent contractor is engaged in a highly dangerous activity.

+ Indemnity

[harmonep07]

if the gasoline inside the tanker exploded and injured a passenger or a car, then the tanker is strictly liable because the gasoline was the cause of the accident.

if the tanker simply was involved in a roll over accident and the tanker crushed a car, then the gas company ( for simplicity sake not the same company as the truck) is not strict liable because the gasoline ( dangerous object) was not the casue of the injury.. the truck was...



think about what was the exact reason for the injury... was I thte object inside or something else carrying device. if its the dangerous object inside- strict liability. if its something else( then not)

But if the truck company and gas company were separate, the gas company wouldn't be strictly liable even if there were an explosion, unless strict products liability applied (which it obviously wouldn't). The gas company is not engaged in the ultra hazardous activity in that case, the truck company is.

Not necessarily. Remember agency law. A principal is vicariously liable for an independent contractor's torts if the independent contractor is engaged in a highly dangerous activity.

+ Indemnity

Right. But vicarious liability is a different theory of liability. I was pointing out that the gas company would not be strictly liable for the explosion of the gas it sells in itself because it was engaged in an ultra hazardous activity. It wasn't. The truck company was engaged in the ultra hazardous activity.The gas company could also be liable for ordinary negligence if there was negligent entrustment. Also, the gas company could be strictly liable for a product defect, although that seems unlikely.

The truck company would not be able to be indemnified by the gas company. If vicarious liability applied, the gas company could be indemnified by the truck company, but not vice versa. Indemnity from the gas company to the truck company would only apply were the gas company liable in strict products liability and the explosion was the result of a product defect, and someone sought relief against the trucking company for selling it defective gas.

[Law-So-Hard]

Right. But vicarious liability is a different theory of liability. I was pointing out that the gas company would not be strictly liable for the explosion of the gas it sells in itself because it was engaged in an ultra hazardous activity. It wasn't. The truck company was engaged in the ultra hazardous activity.The gas company could also be liable for ordinary negligence if there was negligent entrustment. Also, the gas company could be strictly liable for a product defect, although that seems unlikely.

The truck company would not be able to be indemnified by the gas company. If vicarious liability applied, the gas company could be indemnified by the truck company, but not vice versa. Indemnity from the gas company to the truck company would only apply were the gas company liable in strict products liability and the explosion was the result of a product defect, and someone sought relief against the trucking company for selling it defective gas.

Assuming the gas company hired a trucking company to transport its gas and the driver negligently caused an accident involving the dangerous nature of the gas itself - an explosion:
1. Gas company is liable on a theory of respondeat superior because truck driver was his agent. Do the employee/independent contractor analysis - master is liable for acts of his servants, not IC. Even if the truck driver was in IC - can't delegate away certain duties for public policy reasons. Likely the harm caused by transporting gas - non-delegable. Gas company would be vicariously liable. Can seek indemnity from trucking co. And yes, as you pointed out, could be liable for negligent entrustment. The master always remains liable for his own personal torts.
2. Gas company may be liable for the ultrahazardous activity of the gas itself. The analysis turns on whether gas is an unreasonably dangerous activity or industry within the community. On the one hand, gas is an industrial/personal necessity and ubiquitous, on the other, it is inherently dangerous b/c of its high flammability and toxicity. The harm it could cause is potentially very great. Can seek indemnity from trucking co.
3. Product liability strict liability theory - this does not apply because the gas company is currently only transporting the gasoline, it has not yet sold it or made it available to consumers. It's still located onboard the trucks.
4. Both trucking co and gas co are liable on negligence theory alone.

[harmonep07]

Right. But vicarious liability is a different theory of liability. I was pointing out that the gas company would not be strictly liable for the explosion of the gas it sells in itself because it was engaged in an ultra hazardous activity. It wasn't. The truck company was engaged in the ultra hazardous activity.The gas company could also be liable for ordinary negligence if there was negligent entrustment. Also, the gas company could be strictly liable for a product defect, although that seems unlikely.

The truck company would not be able to be indemnified by the gas company. If vicarious liability applied, the gas company could be indemnified by the truck company, but not vice versa. Indemnity from the gas company to the truck company would only apply were the gas company liable in strict products liability and the explosion was the result of a product defect, and someone sought relief against the trucking company for selling it defective gas.

Assuming the gas company hired a trucking company to transport its gas and the driver negligently caused an accident involving the dangerous nature of the gas itself - an explosion:
1. Gas company is liable on a theory of respondeat superior because truck driver was his agent. Do the employee/independent contractor analysis - master is liable for acts of his servants, not IC. Even if the truck driver was in IC - can't delegate away certain duties for public policy reasons. Likely the harm caused by transporting gas - non-delegable. Gas company would be vicariously liable. Can seek indemnity from trucking co. And yes, as you pointed out, could be liable for negligent entrustment. The master always remains liable for his own personal torts.
2. Gas company may be liable for the ultrahazardous activity of the gas itself. The analysis turns on whether gas is an unreasonably dangerous activity or industry within the community. On the one hand, gas is an industrial/personal necessity and ubiquitous, on the other, it is inherently dangerous b/c of its high flammability and toxicity. The harm it could cause is potentially very great. Can seek indemnity from trucking co.
3. Product liability strict liability theory - this does not apply because the gas company is currently only transporting the gasoline, it has not yet sold it or made it available to consumers. It's still located onboard the trucks.
4. Both trucking co and gas co are liable on negligence theory alone.

Yes, as I said, in none if those instances will the trucking company be able to seek indemnity from the gas company.

As to 2., this is not right and was my point in the first place. The gas company cannot be liable for engaging in an ultra hazardous activity. If the trucking company is a separate legal entity, it was the defendant engaged in an ultrahazardous activity, namely transporting gasoline, not the gas company.

[Law-So-Hard]

Yeah, I see the distinction you're raising. Suffice it to say it's fact-specific and we'll know it when we see it on the MBE/Essay

[Law-So-Hard]

On an unrelated note, anyone else experiencing really strange psychological issues? Lots of old and sometimes unpleasant memories long-repressed coming up? Random feelings of guilt and shame? Low self esteem? I mean, on top of the usual anxiety and depression.

[Tanicius]

On an unrelated note, anyone else experiencing really strange psychological issues? Lots of old and sometimes unpleasant memories long-repressed coming up? Random feelings of guilt and shame? Low self esteem? I mean, on top of the usual anxiety and depression.

Hahaha-- ...yes.

[beachbum]

On an unrelated note, anyone else experiencing really strange psychological issues? Lots of old and sometimes unpleasant memories long-repressed coming up? Random feelings of guilt and shame? Low self esteem? I mean, on top of the usual anxiety and depression.

I've been getting uncharacteristically nostalgic. Been watching lots of Will Ferrell-era SNL.

Also been having lots of daydreams about becoming a day laborer.

[LAWYER2]

I dream about MBE's every night

[LSATNightmares]

On an unrelated note, anyone else experiencing really strange psychological issues? Lots of old and sometimes unpleasant memories long-repressed coming up? Random feelings of guilt and shame? Low self esteem? I mean, on top of the usual anxiety and depression.

Yes. After reviewing Crim Law, I had a nightmare my family was murdered, with all sorts of gory details. I don't know why I reviewed the elements of murder, since it just makes me more miserable.

[Law-So-Hard]

I had a crim dream too - there was a serial killer captured on the day of the bar exam, and the circumstances of his crimes were all really gory - and I dreamed everyone in the exam room turned into the serial killer and I was begging and crying them/him to just let me take the exam.

Lol

[LSATNightmares]

I had a crim dream too - there was a serial killer captured on the day of the bar exam, and the circumstances of his crimes were all really gory - and I dreamed everyone in the exam room turned into the serial killer and I was begging and crying them/him to just let me take the exam.

Lol

Haha, I'm glad I'm not alone! The trauma from this exam.

[VermiciousKnid]

I dream about MBE's every night

Last night I had a dream where I finally figured out the Rule Against Perpetuities.

[northwood]

I dream about MBE's every night

Last night I had a dream where I finally figured out the Rule Against Perpetuities.

I always just cross that answer choice off unless it is the last one standing