Paralegal Certification PrepTorts and Property LawHard
A small independent contractor is hired to detonate explosives to clear a rock formation for a new road project in a remote, unpopulated area. Despite all precautions being taken and industry best practices followed, the vibrations from one of the blasts cause minor structural damage to a neighboring, unoccupied cabin located further away than anticipated. Which legal doctrine would most likely hold the contractor liable for the damage?
- AStrict liability
- BRes ipsa loquitur
- CTrespass
- DNegligence
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: A. Strict liability
Strict liability applies to abnormally dangerous activities, such as blasting, where the risk of harm cannot be entirely eliminated even with the utmost care. The contractor would be liable regardless of fault.
Why the other options are wrong
- B. Res ipsa loquitur ('the thing speaks for itself') is a doctrine of evidence used when negligence is inferred in the absence of direct proof, but it still relies on an underlying assumption of negligence, which is not the primary issue here.
- C. Trespass requires a direct physical invasion. While vibrations are a form of invasion, the scenario specifically points to the inherent danger of the activity itself as the primary legal basis for liability, which is strict liability.
- D. Negligence requires a breach of duty, causation, and damages. Since all precautions were taken, negligence would be difficult to prove.
Strict Liability (Abnormally Dangerous Activities)
Liability without fault, imposed on defendants engaged in activities that are inherently dangerous, even if they exercise the utmost care to prevent harm.
- Applies to activities that pose a high risk of serious harm.
- Risk cannot be eliminated even with reasonable care.
- Activity is not a matter of common usage in the community.
Memory trick: Strict liability means you're stuck, even if you did your best.