Also known as:Restatement 2d Torts §519 · § 519 · Restatement (Second) of Torts section 519 · abnormally dangerous activities · strict liability · Rylands v. Fletcher
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule that holds one who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity strictly liable for harm of the kind that makes the activity abnormally dangerous even if the actor exercised the utmost care to prevent the harm.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Crop Dusting Drift Damages Orchard
Rita Russell owns an organic apple orchard next to fields sprayed by a crop-dusting company hired by a neighboring farm. A sudden wind shift carries concentrated pesticide onto her trees and ruins their organic certification. Russell had received notice of the spraying schedule and remained outside to repair equipment. Her decision to stay outdoors does not bar recovery because ordinary contributory negligence supplies no defense to strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity.
Explosives Storage Causes Blast Damage
A construction firm stores large quantities of dynamite on its site in a residential neighborhood to blast rock for a new highway. An accidental detonation damages nearby homes. Because the storage and use of explosives is an abnormally dangerous activity, the firm is strictly liable for the harm even though it took every precaution.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Common Law
Restatements
Casebooks
Visitor Approaches Unfamiliar Dog
Roger Ramirez enters an auto-repair shop to retrieve his vehicle and sees a large dog lying near an open bay. He walks directly up to the dog to determine whether it is friendly and is bitten. Ramirez's ordinary contributory negligence in approaching the unfamiliar animal does not defeat the shop owner's strict liability for harm caused by an abnormally dangerous activity.
Photographer Leans Over Bison Fence
Robert Rivera visits a roadside bison enclosure on a farm and leans over the fence despite posted warnings to photograph a calf. A bison gores him. Rivera's voluntary approach to the enclosure constitutes assumption of the risk and therefore bars recovery under the strict-liability rule for harm caused by a wild animal.
Farmer Ignores Spraying Schedule
Rowan Russell receives advance notice that a neighboring farm will aerially apply strong pesticides and is advised to stay indoors. He remains outside repairing equipment. Wind shifts and he inhales the spray. His knowing decision to stay outdoors constitutes contributory negligence that bars recovery for harm from the abnormally dangerous activity.
Trespasser Enters Manure-Pit Area
Rachel Ramirez deliberately crosses posted warnings and enters a farm to complain about pesticide drift. She passes visibly dangerous liquid-manure pits and is injured when gases ignite. Because she intentionally trespassed on the land, the farm owner owes her no strict liability for harm caused by the abnormally dangerous activity conducted there.
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
Does ordinary contributory negligence bar recovery in a strict-liability action for an abnormally dangerous activity?+
No. Ordinary contributory negligence does not defeat strict liability for harm caused by an abnormally dangerous activity or by a wild or abnormally dangerous domestic animal. Only a plaintiff's knowing and unreasonable exposure to the precise risk created by the activity, or true assumption of risk, supplies a defense.
Supporting sources
What kinds of harm trigger strict liability under the abnormally dangerous activity rule?+
Strict liability attaches only for harm of the kind that makes the activity abnormally dangerous. Idiosyncratic or highly unusual plaintiff-specific injuries falling outside the characteristic risks of the activity do not give rise to strict liability even when the activity itself qualifies as abnormally dangerous.
Supporting sources
Does intentional trespass bar recovery for harm from an abnormally dangerous activity?+
Yes. A possessor of land is not subject to strict liability to one who intentionally trespasses for harm done by an abnormally dangerous activity conducted on the land, even if the trespasser has no reason to know the activity is occurring there.
Supporting sources
418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 (1974)Torts
…in compensating private individuals for injury to reputation, yet shields the press and broadcast media from the rigors of strict liability for defamation. At the same time, we do not hold that the Constitution requires that the States apply the New York Times rule in all cases. We hold only that so long as they do not…