Abogado.com The #1 Legal Website in Spanish for Consumers A person who is injured by any of these inherently dangerous activities by entering the property of the person involved in the activity is excluded from prosecution under a strict theory of liability. Instead, they must prove that the owner acted negligently. An ultra-dangerous activity in the Common Law of Torts is an activity that is so dangerous in nature that a person involved in such an activity can be held strictly responsible for injuries inflicted on another person, even if the person involved in the activity has taken all reasonable precautions to prevent: that others are injured. In the reformulation of Law 2d, Torts 2d, the term was dropped in favor of the term “inherently dangerous activity”. While the activity doesn`t have to be unusual, an unusually dangerous activity is a type of activity that most people don`t do regularly. For example, while driving a car carries some risk of bodily harm, it is not exceptionally dangerous for the majority of people. An activity is exceptionally dangerous if it meets the following two main criteria: Today, the courts repealed the “ultra-dangerous” provision in favor of the method currently used to determine an “abnormally dangerous activity”. It looks at specific activities and analyzes them based on six factors to determine whether the activity is unusually dangerous or not. These six factors are: Note: Exceptionally hazardous activities are subject to strict liability. Unusually dangerous and ultra-hazardous activities are sometimes used interchangeably. Ultra-hazardous activity: The definition is the same as for unusually dangerous activities.
However, this is the old standard used by the court to establish strict liability. The definition of unusually hazardous activities may vary from State to State, but some are widely considered to be abnormally dangerous. For example, activities such as blasting explosives, disposal of hazardous chemical wastes and containment or production of radioactive materials are considered exceptionally hazardous at a universal level. The FindLaw Legal Dictionary – free access to more than 8260 definitions of legal terms. Search for a definition or browse our legal glossaries. The general rule is that if a person maintains an abnormally dangerous condition on his or her property or takes an action that presents an unavoidable risk of harm to other persons or property, that person may be held liable for damage caused under the strict liability theory, even if he or she has exercised due diligence, to avoid damage. Examples include the manufacture and use of explosives, the storage of hazardous chemicals or fuels, and other such things that can cause significant damage if mishandled. The question facing the various courts in cases such as this is what constitutes an exceptionally dangerous condition or activity. Again, strict liability is imposed for injuries sustained by the plaintiff himself or his property, even if no one was responsible for the injuries. However, the obligation not to cause harm is due only to foreseeable claimants. In addition, the harm suffered by the applicant must result from a danger or risk foreseeable by the abnormally dangerous condition, activity or inclination of the animal.
n. an act or process that is inherently so dangerous that the person or entity carrying on the activity is “strictly responsible” for any harm caused by the activity. Examples: Working with explosives or conducting a professional car race on public roads. “Unusually dangerous activity Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/legal/abnormally%20dangerous%20activity. Accessed October 10, 2022. Unusually dangerous activity: A business that cannot be carried out safely, even if reasonable precautions are taken in its performance, and for which the actor can be held liable for any damage caused, regardless of fault. Courts currently use a list of standards to determine whether or not an unusually dangerous activity has been undertaken, so strict liability applies. LawInfo.com Nationalwide Lawyers` Directory and Legal Consumer Resources In general, if the activity can cause significant bodily injury or financial loss, regardless of the amount of care provided, it is likely to be considered abnormally dangerous in a no-fault liability case. At FindLaw.com, we are proud to be the leading source of free legal information and resources on the Internet. Contact us. Unusually hazardous activities are not necessarily reduced to activities that alone would cause physical harm. These activities can also be considered exceptionally dangerous if they put people at risk of emotional pain and financial loss.
In Rylands v. Fletcher, an English case of 1868, the notice stated that “[a] person who brings his land for his own purposes and who collects and stores there all that is likely to cause harm if he escapes must keep it at his own risk.” U.S. courts often cite this case as the origin of the exceptionally dangerous activities rule. In U.S. jurisdictions, the courts have never required the activity to take place on the defendant`s land. However, they maintained the requirement of “unnatural use” in the form of “general non-use”, that is, an activity that is inappropriate or inappropriate in light of the circumstances. FindLaw.com Free and reliable legal information for consumers and lawyers Are you a lawyer? Visit our professional website » The first factor is the general usage. In Shuck v. 2021 Beck, the Court found common language when many people in the community “usually continue” the activity. Other States are also looking at frequency. For example, in the Vacation Vil case.
Homeowners Assn. Inc. v. The City of Fallsburg, a wastewater treatment plant was considered commonly used because it is located in most of the developed communities.