A company operates a chemical plant that stores and processes highly hazardous materials. Despite taking extensive safety precautions, a storage tank ruptures and releases toxic chemicals into a nearby residential neighborhood, causing property damage. Can the company be held liable for the damage?
No, because the company did not act with intent to cause harm.
Yes, because storing and processing hazardous materials is considered an abnormally dangerous activity under strict liability law.
Yes, because the company issued advance warnings about potential risks to the community.
No, because taking extensive safety precautions eliminates liability.
The correct answer is that the company can be held liable because operating a facility that involves hazardous chemicals qualifies as an abnormally dangerous activity. Under the doctrine of strict liability, liability attaches not to fault or intent but to the inherently dangerous nature of the activity. Compliance with safety regulations or the absence of intent does not absolve a company from liability in such cases. Other answers incorrectly suggest that factors like intent, compliance, or providing warnings negate strict liability, but none of these are defenses for abnormally dangerous activities under strict liability law.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What are abnormally dangerous activities in strict liability law?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is strict liability and how does it differ from negligence?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What defenses can a company use against strict liability claims?