Also known as: abnormally dangerous activity · abnormally dangerous activities doctrine · ultrahazardous activities · strict liability activities
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An activity that poses an unusually high risk of injury for which the actor is subject to strict liability for resulting physical harm. The doctrine places loss on the party creating the risk rather than requiring proof of negligence.
Aether Technologies conducts blasting near a residential area. Albert Allen ignores posted warnings and walks close to the site to retrieve a lost tool. A blast sends debris that injures him. His decision to approach despite warnings does not prevent recovery because contributory negligence is not a defense to strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities.
Arcadia Retail hires a firm to apply pesticides by air on fields next to Anita Ali's organic farm. Wind carries the spray onto her crops. The resulting contamination destroys her harvest. The aerial application qualifies as abnormally dangerous and subjects the actor to liability for the entry and harm even without separate proof of negligence.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Anchor Bank stores ordinary construction materials on its lot. A sudden unforecast gust topples a stack that rolls onto Arthur Abrams's adjacent property and damages his fence. Because the storage is not an abnormally dangerous activity the entry is unintentional and non-negligent so the bank is not liable for the resulting harm.
Apex Dynamics ships a chemical by rail through a populated corridor. A derailment releases the substance and damages nearby property. The court determines that the transport activity itself does not meet the criteria for abnormal dangerousness so strict liability does not attach and the shipper is not automatically liable without fault.
Andrew Avery installs flexible gas piping in a commercial building using a product later alleged to be defective. A leak causes an explosion injuring occupants. The analysis weighs the product's risks against its utility and determines whether the activity of using the piping in that context triggers strict liability for abnormally dangerous conditions.
Aaron Adams drives a vehicle whose door latch fails in a collision causing injury. Evidence shows he was intoxicated and had not used available safety restraints. The court applies comparative fault principles to reduce recovery in the strict products liability claim arising from the design defect.
No. Contributory negligence is not a defense to strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities except when the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably subjects himself to the risk.
Supporting sources
Courts consider the degree of risk, inability to eliminate risk through care, appropriateness to the location, and the extent to which the activity is a matter of common usage.
Supporting sources
Yes. One who employs an independent contractor to perform work known to involve an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to the same strict liability as the contractor.
Supporting sources
…for example, upon keepers of wild animals, or those who handled explosives or other dangerous substances, or who engaged in ultrahazardous activities. Simultaneously, and more particularly, those who were injured in the use of personal property were permitted recovery on a contract theory if they were the purchasers of the chattel or…