Torts · Strict Liability Torts

medium frequency

MBE Torts: Strict Liability Torts

An overview of strict liability torts, exploring key principles and common examination themes.

Overview

Strict liability torts impose liability without the necessity of proving fault, focusing instead on the nature of the activity that caused the injury. The doctrine is primarily applicable in specific contexts, including inherently dangerous activities, defective products, and animal attacks. Under strict liability, plaintiffs are not required to show negligence, thereby facilitating recovery in certain high-risk situations.

The key elements of strict liability generally include the existence of an abnormally dangerous activity and causation. Common defenses do not typically apply, as liability is determined by the nature of the activity itself rather than the behavior of the defendant. As tested on the MBE, students should be familiar with the rules surrounding various applications of strict liability, as well as the differences between strict liability and negligence standards.

Key Rules
  1. Strict liability applies to abnormally dangerous activities.
  2. Manufacturers are strictly liable for defects in their products that cause harm.
  3. Liability exists for harm caused by wild animals owned by the defendant.
  4. The plaintiff must show that the harm resulted from the inherent risks of the activity or product.
  5. Certain defenses, such as contributory negligence, are typically not applicable in strict liability cases.
Common Question Patterns
  • Identifying whether an activity qualifies as abnormally dangerous.
  • Differentiating between strict liability and negligence standard.
  • Analyzing product liability cases involving defective products.
  • Evaluating claims involving harm from wild animals.
  • Assessing potential defenses available in strict liability claims.
Practice Questions

1. A company manufactures a chemical that is widely used but known to be highly explosive if improperly stored. During a storm, the chemical is exposed to water and detonates, causing damage to neighboring properties. Can the company be held liable under strict liability?

A. A) Yes, because the chemical manufacture is an abnormally dangerous activity.(Correct)

B. B) No, because the company took reasonable care in storing the chemical.

C. C) Yes, but only if negligence can be established.

D. D) No, due to an act of God.

Explanation: Strict liability applies as the manufacture and storage of the chemical is considered an abnormally dangerous activity.

2. A homeowner adopts a pet crocodile, which escapes and injures a neighbor. Can the homeowner be held strictly liable for the injury caused by the crocodile?

A. A) Yes, because the crocodile is considered a wild animal.(Correct)

B. B) No, if the crocodile had never exhibited aggressive behavior before.

C. C) Yes, but only if the homeowner had prior knowledge of the crocodile's potential danger.

D. D) No, because the injury was accidental.

Explanation: Under strict liability, an owner of a wild animal is liable for damages caused by that animal regardless of knowledge of its dangerous tendencies.

3. A consumer purchases a toy for her child, which is later found to have a defect that causes injury. What must the consumer prove to establish strict liability against the manufacturer?

A. A) That the manufacturer was negligent in the design.

B. B) That the product was sold in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user.(Correct)

C. C) That the consumer used the product incorrectly.

D. D) That the toy was recalled due to its defect.

Explanation: To establish strict liability, the consumer must demonstrate that the product was in a defective condition that made it unreasonably dangerous.

4. During a public exhibition, a circus elephant escapes and causes injuries to attendees. Is the circus liable under strict liability?

A. A) Yes, because circus animals are inherently dangerous.(Correct)

B. B) No, if the circus can prove adequate training was given to the elephant.

C. C) Yes, but only if it can be shown that the elephant had a history of escaping.

D. D) No, if the elephant escaped due to unforeseeable circumstances.

Explanation: Circuses are held strictly liable for injuries caused by their wild animals, regardless of the precautions taken.

5. After a strict liability injury occurs, the defendant argues that the plaintiff assumed the risk by engaging in a dangerous activity. Is this a valid defense?

A. A) Yes, assuming risk is a valid defense to strict liability.

B. B) No, assumption of the risk typically does not apply in strict liability cases.(Correct)

C. C) Yes, but only if the plaintiff was aware of the specific danger.

D. D) No, unless the injury was self-inflicted.

Explanation: Assumption of risk is generally not a valid defense in strict liability torts.

Test-Taking Tips
  • Always identify the type of activity involved when dealing with strict liability.
  • Distinguish between negligence and strict liability by focusing on the elements of each.
  • Pay attention to the nature of the product or animal involved in the questions; this often hints at the application of strict liability.
  • Review case law on product liability and animal attacks frequently tested in MBE questions.
  • Practice outlining your reasoning quickly to improve time management on the exam.

Master MBE Topics with Briefly

Get AI-powered study tools, practice questions, and comprehensive legal resources.