Aug 24 Torts: SL v Neg
common law: no one wrote rules down; they just start deciding cases inference is never perfect b/c results can trump rule statemtort law is common lawstatute lawexercise 2 Siegler v Kuhlman
Restatement (2nd) of Torts
abnormally dangerous activity = L, even w/.utmost care
unusual risk
not common usage
extraordinary danger
Bolton v Stone
Rogers v. Elliott
church bell
right to use prop vs peculiar temperament
Victim precaution
P sued for neg and nuisance, use Rylands principle
Blackburn in Rylands
mischief, at his peril, prima facie, escape
Losee v Buchanan
Kent v Gulf State Utilities
rake held by P's deceased touched D's pwr wires
Kent
P caused accident in Kent
Sullivan
P did not cause accident
Central Trust & Savings Bank v Toppert
dynamite set by P's deceased killed him
Coxhill v Forward
D's LPG auto tank exploded and burned P's premises
Coxhill extends Musgrove
Musgrove v Pandelis
D's newfangled car leaked gas and ignited; fire spread to P's adjacent premises
Musgrove v PandelisWalker Shoe Store v Howard's Hobby ShopD's furnace tank leaked and caught fire, which spread to P's adjacent premises
Rainham Chemical Works, Ltd v Belvedere Fish
West v Bristol Tramways Co
West v Bristol Tramways CoVaughannature of authorization (authorized to use rr)
here, no authority to use creosote
West extends Rylandsdon't read case broadly
creosote fumes de D's newly laid tracks damaged P's plants
Central Trust & Savings Bank v Toppert
Central Trust & Savings Bank v Toppertlimits Sullivan
DelanoP contributed to accident in this case
Central Trust less clear b/c dynamite set off by co-worker, not P
assume risk?
P's deceased set dynamite that killed him
Central Trust & Savings Bank v ToppertDelano v Mother's Super MarketP slipped on D's ice
under neg, precaution = NLunder sl, precaution still = L Davis v Niagara Falls Tower
congealed ice de D's twr fell onto and broke P's adjacent skylight
Davis v Niagara Falls Tower Co
Lubin v Iowa City
D's water main broke and flooded P's basem
~ b/c predictable
Guille v Swan
trespass
emerging tech (unusual to have twr so high)
Vaughan
Diff b/c contributory neg
how to change facts in Davis to have ~ ruling: small piece of snow fell
how to change facts in Vaughan to have ~ ruling: coals bounce off of rr cars
Sullivan v Dunham
Sullivan v Dunham
Guille v Swan
D's balloon and following crowd invaded P's farm
R
analogy: not a classic escape, tresspass in both cases
Ds dynamited tree that struck P's deceased
read broadly
Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather
P's Rylands claim failed b/c natural use of land here
not foreseeable
long-distance pollution
Madsen v East Jordan Irrigation Co
excitable minks
proximate causation
D's steam boiler exploded and spread shrapnel and destruction to P's neighboring building
