14. In an action by the plaintiff against the construction company to recover damages for his injuries, the plaintiff will

Strict liability requires proof of the following elements: (i) the nature of the defendant's activity imposes an absolute duty to make safe; (ii) the dangerous aspect of the activity is the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury; and (iii) the plaintiff suffered damage to person or property.

An activity may be characterized as abnormally dangerous if it involves a substantial risk of serious harm to a person or property even when reasonable care is exercised. For an activity to be considered abnormally dangerous, two requirements must be met: (i) the activity must create a foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors; and (ii) the activity must not be a matter of common usage in the community.

Ordinary contributory negligence by the plaintiff will usually not be a defense in strict liability cases, and the plaintiff will still recover despite having acted negligently. This is mostly true in situations where the plaintiff's contributory negligence involves being inattentive and not discovering a risk that she reasonably should have. Courts will place the full responsibility of preventing the harm on the party subjecting others to the abnormal risk. However, if the plaintiff knowingly, voluntarily, and unreasonably subjects herself to the danger, this will be a defense even to strict liability. In those situations, the plaintiff's conduct is also considered an assumption of the risk. When a plaintiff assumes a risk reasonably, meaning she agrees to be exposed to the risk of danger, she will also not prevail.

B is correct. Although the general rule will not allow a defendant who is strictly liable to invoke contributory negligence as a defense, there is an exception involving an unreasonable assumption of risk. Specifically, a plaintiff who knowingly, voluntarily, and unreasonably subjects himself to the ultra-hazardous danger will not recover. This is because the plaintiff was not merely inattentive, but rather, appreciated the magnitude of the risk and decided to endanger himself anyway. Here, the plaintiff saw the warning signs and the barricades around the blasting area, and proceeded to enter, knowing he may be injured. This was unreasonable, and he was assuming the risk. As such, the plaintiff's contributory negligence will bar him from recovery in this case.

A is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The plaintiff will lose, but not because of the construction company's reasonable care in its efforts to protect the public. Reasonableness of care is irrelevant in strict liability cases because the defendant has an absolute duty to make safe and will be liable regardless of positive intent or lack of negligence. This is because the level of danger is such that even reasonable care can not ameliorate all risk. Nevertheless, the plaintiff will still lose, but because he unreasonably assumed the risk by disregarding the warnings and efforts to keep him out of a dangerous area.

C is incorrect. Although normally a defendant is strictly liable for harm caused by an abnormally dangerous activity, contributory negligence is a defense where the plaintiff has acted unreasonably in knowingly disregarding the risk and subjecting himself to harm anyway. As explained above, the plaintiff's unreasonable assumption of the risk by entering the dangerous area will bar him from recovery.

D is incorrect. This is a misapplication of the law to the facts. The plaintiff acted entirely unreasonably by seeing the signs, understanding their warnings, and proceeding around the barricades to the dangerous area. By unreasonably assuming the risk and acting negligently, the plaintiff will not be able to recover.