Text № 10 Liability without fault

We have already examined intentional interferences and negligent conduct. In the area of liability without fault, neither party has intentionally interfered with another's person or property, nor was either party's conduct below the reasonable standard. Yet liability is imposed upon one of the parties. Why? The reason lies in a policy determination made by the court. In effect, the court asked: Between the two parties, who should bear the loss?

Common situations of liability without fault include injuries caused by abnormally dangerous instrumentalities or activities, and the application of the "Dram Shop" laws. The first situation includes injuries inflicted by animals. Liability is imposed on the owner of the animal because it is felt that he should be required to protect the community from any risks involved in keeping that animal. Most courts hold that damages to property caused by the trespass of animals such as horses, cattle, and wandering fowl impose strict liability on their owners. Some courts make an exception to this rule for cats and dogs since they cause minimal damage in their wanderings. On the other hand, statutes in many states expressly provide that owners are liable for damage done by all domestic animals.

Courts have consistently held that any injury inflicted by a "dangerous animal" subjects the owner of that animal to strict liability. Lions, tigers, bears, monkeys, and similar species are classed as "dangerous". When other animals inflict injury, the law imposes liability only if the owner of the animal knew, or had reason to know, that the animal might be dangerous. This class includes cattle, sheep, horses, dogs, and cats. It is from this rule that the old phrase "every dog is entitled to one bite" received its validity. Presumable after the first bite, the owner should know that his dog has a propensity to become violent and attack someone. If at some later date the dog injures a third party, its owner may be held responsible for the damages.

Strict liability for damages is imposed on the owners of abnormally dangerous instrumentalities or the directors of dangerous activities. Under this theory, the owner of a tendon tractor or steam roller is held liable for any injuries caused by these machines. Dynamite blasting is an example of an abnormally dangerous activity that can impose liability on the person in charge. Liability has been imposed in these situations partly because the owner of a potentially dangerous machine or the controller of a hazardous activity is seeking economic gain through its use. Therefore, he should pay for any injuries, which occur as a consequence of his operations.

Strict liability is also imposed in those situations involving the "Dram Shop" laws. Many states have statutes holding sellers of intoxicants responsible for any injuries to a third person resulting from the intoxication of a customer. For example, suppose Roger buys a large amount of liquor from Rush's Tavern. As a consequence, Roger becomes extremely intoxicated and later incites a brawl in which he injures John. Under the "Dram Shop" laws, John could recover damages from Rush's Tavern for the injuries he suffered as a result of Roger's intoxication.