Question: What exposure is there for carrying out an “inherently dangerous activity”?
Answer: Strict liability for damages caused. See below. This doctrine, provides: (1) One who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to liability for harm to the person, land or chattels of another resulting from the activity, although he has exercised the utmost care to prevent the harm. (2) This strict liability is limited to the kind of harm, the possibility of which makes the activity abnormally dangerous. In determining whether an activity is abnormally dangerous, the following factors are to be considered: (a) Existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land or chattels of another; (b) Likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great; (c) Inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care; (d) Extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage; (e) Inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on; (f) Extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes. Where a person chooses to use an abnormally dangerous instrumentality, that person is strictly liable without a showing of negligence for any injury proximately caused by that instrumentality. The issue of whether an activity is abnormally dangerous is a question of law for the courts which have found that using dynamite and owning certain types of animals are examples of an inherently dangerous activities.
