Also known as: ultrahazardous activities · ultra-hazardous activity · ultra-hazardous activities · abnormally dangerous activity
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An activity that carries a high degree of risk of serious harm to persons or property. The risk cannot be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care. The activity is not a matter of common usage in the community.
Upstream Petroleum stores large quantities of explosives on its property. A neighboring resident, Usman Uddin, walks onto the site despite posted warnings and is injured when a blast occurs. Uddin's decision to enter the area does not bar his recovery against Upstream under strict liability.
Upland Industries conducts blasting operations that send rock fragments onto Ulrike Ulrich's adjacent land. The fragments damage Ulrich's barn. Upland is subject to liability even though the entry resulted from its abnormally dangerous activity.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ugo Ucelli stores dynamite for a construction project. An unexpected tremor causes a small amount of the material to roll onto Una Unger's neighboring lot without any fault by Ucelli. Ucelli faces no liability because the activity is not abnormally dangerous under the governing standard.
United Bank ships a load of industrial chemicals by rail. The cargo leaks during transit and contaminates property owned by Urban Logistics. The carrier avoids strict liability because the transport does not qualify as an abnormally dangerous activity under the applicable factors.
Ursula Ureña operates a rail yard where a chemical release creates a vapor cloud that forces nearby businesses to close. The affected airline, People Express Airlines, Inc., recovers under strict liability because the storage and handling meet the criteria for an abnormally dangerous activity.
Umeko Uchida runs a mill that uses explosives to clear rock. Vibrations from the blasts damage a nearby home owned by Foster. Uchida is held strictly liable because the blasting constitutes an ultrahazardous activity regardless of the precautions taken.
No. The contributory negligence of the plaintiff is not a defense to the strict liability of one who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity, except where the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably subjects himself to the risk.
Supporting sources
An unintentional and non-negligent entry does not subject the actor to liability unless the actor is engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity. The presence of such an activity removes the protection otherwise available for non-negligent intrusions.
Supporting sources
Yes. The plaintiff's assumption of the risk of harm from an abnormally dangerous activity bars recovery for the harm.
Supporting sources
No. There is no strict liability for harm caused by an abnormally dangerous activity if the harm would not have resulted but for the abnormally sensitive character of the plaintiff's activity.
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…