Also known as: abnormally dangerous activities · ultrahazardous activity · ultrahazardous activities
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An activity that creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors and that is not one of common usage. The activity must involve risks that cannot be eliminated through precautions and that are not typical in the community where it occurs.
Argonaut Shipping stores large quantities of explosives near a residential area for its operations. A blast sends debris onto Andrew Avery's adjacent property despite posted warnings. Avery had ignored the warnings and stood nearby watching the activity. Argonaut remains strictly liable for the damage because contributory negligence does not defeat recovery for harm from an abnormally dangerous activity.
Aurora Biotech conducts experiments that release pressurized gas across property lines onto Abigail Alvarez's land. The gas damages her crops and equipment. Alvarez sues for the intrusion. Aurora faces liability because the release resulted from its abnormally dangerous activity even though the gas crossed the boundary unintentionally.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Arcadia Retail stores flammable chemicals on its property. A valve fails without fault and the chemicals flow onto Adam Anderson's neighboring lot causing damage. Anderson sues for trespass. Arcadia is liable because the chemicals escaped during an abnormally dangerous activity despite the lack of negligence in the valve failure.
Aether Technologies ships acrylonitrile by rail through a populated area. A leak occurs and forces cleanup costs on a switching line. The switching line claims strict liability. The court holds the transport is not an abnormally dangerous activity because the risk can be managed through ordinary care and the substance is commonly shipped.
Consolidated Rail Corp. stores chemicals near an airport. A fire forces evacuation and causes lost profits to People Express Airlines without physical damage to its property. The airline sues under strict liability. Recovery is denied because the claim rests on economic loss alone and does not satisfy the physical harm requirement tied to the abnormally dangerous activity.
Omega Flex manufactures flexible gas piping sold to contractors. A pipe fails in a home causing an explosion. The homeowner sues under strict products liability. The court treats the claim as a products case rather than one involving an abnormally dangerous activity because the risk arises from a defect in the product after it leaves the seller's control.
Contributory negligence does not bar recovery. The rule places the loss on the party carrying on the activity rather than on the victim.
Courts weigh whether the activity creates a high degree of risk of serious harm that cannot be eliminated by reasonable care, whether it is uncommon in the community, and whether its value is outweighed by its dangers. Blasting and crop dusting typically meet these criteria while ordinary manufacturing does not.
Recovery for pure economic loss is generally unavailable. The doctrine requires physical harm to land, persons, or protected interests. Lost profits alone do not trigger strict liability even when the activity is abnormally dangerous.
Yes. A plaintiff who knowingly and voluntarily assumes the risk of harm from the activity is barred from recovery. This defense applies even though contributory negligence ordinarily does not.
…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…