Also known as: abnormally dangerous condition · ultrahazardous conditions
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A category of conditions or activities that create risks of serious harm not reasonably eliminable by the exercise of due care. Such conditions support tort liability for resulting invasions of land use and enjoyment even when the defendant's conduct is unintentional. Liability arises only for harms within the scope of the abnormal risk itself.
Atlas Ventures maintains pressurized tanks holding volatile industrial gases on property next to Anita Ali's residence. A slow leak from one tank allows gas to migrate onto Anita's land and damage her garden. Anita sues for private nuisance. The court treats the storage setup as an abnormally dangerous condition and imposes liability without requiring proof of negligence.
Apollo Energy conducts high-heat metal cutting at its dockyard. Andrew Avery, aware of prior flare-ups, repeatedly moors his boat in the nearest slip and sleeps aboard. Debris from a cutting fire damages the boat. Apollo raises contributory negligence. The defense succeeds only because Andrew voluntarily and unreasonably subjected himself to the known fire risk created by the abnormally dangerous activity.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Albert Allen begins building a home that will shade solar panels Alexis Archer installed years earlier on her adjacent property. Alexis sues, claiming the new structure creates an abnormally dangerous interference with her established use of sunlight for energy. The court weighs whether the blocking construction qualifies as an abnormally dangerous condition supporting nuisance liability.
Contributory negligence is a defense only if the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably subjected himself to the risk of harm created by the abnormally dangerous condition or activity. Ordinary negligence by the plaintiff does not bar or reduce recovery. The defense functions essentially as assumption of risk.
Supporting sources
No. Liability is limited to harms that fall within the particular type of risk that makes the activity abnormally dangerous. An injury from an ordinary premises hazard unrelated to the abnormal danger does not trigger strict liability even if the activity caused the plaintiff to encounter the hazard.
Supporting sources
No. Compliance with zoning, permits, or standard industry practice is relevant to reasonableness but does not confer immunity. Liability still attaches when the condition produces a substantial and unreasonable interference with a neighbor's use and enjoyment of land.
Supporting sources
…or (b) unintentional and otherwise actionable under the rules controlling liability for negligent or reckless conduct, or for abnormally dangerous conditions or activities. The defendant argues that the plaintiff has no protected interest in unobstructed access to sunlight. The defendant relies on the common law doctrine of ancient lights which…