Examples of ultrahazardous activities, in which defendants have been found strictly liable, include blasting, fumigation, crop dusting, manufacturing explosives, setting off public fireworks, using radioactive materials, and storing large amounts of rockets.
ultrahazardous activity
Definition
An activity or process that presents an unavoidable risk of serious harm to the other people or others’ property, for which the actor may be held strictly liable for the harm, even if the actor has exercised reasonable care to prevent that harm. Also termed abnormally dangerous activity; extrahazardous activity.
According to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 520: “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 others; (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; and (f) extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes.”
Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
An action or process that is so inherently dangerous that there is strict liability for the person or entity conducting the activity. Examples: working with high explosives or conducting a professional auto race on public streets.
Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.
August 19, 2010, 5:26 pm
“In Wyrulec Co. v. Schutt, the Wyoming Supreme Court stated that although the standard of care in a case involving an ultrahazardous instrumentality is ‘ordinary care under all of the circumstances[,] …. What constitutes ordinary care increases as the danger increases.’ Wyrulec, 866 P.2d at 762. The court continued: ‘The concept of ordinary care accommodates all circumstances so that the degree of care varies with the circumstances. Ordinary care which is commensurate with the danger does not impose a higher duty, but more fully defines what is ordinary care under the facts presented.’ Id. (quotations and citations omitted). In sum, under Wyoming law, a defendant engaged in an ultrahazardous activity must exercise a degree of care commensurate with the danger to meet the ordinary care standard.” J. Ebel, Hynes v. Energy West, Inc., 211 F.3d 1193, 1197-1198 (10th Cir. 2000).
