27. What would be the mining company's best defense?

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. See also Rylands v. Fletcher, L.R. 3 H.L. 330 (1868) and Rest. (Second) of Torts § 519 (establishing a six-factor test for determining whether an activity is considered «abnormally dangerous,» including, but not limited to the high degree of risk, the risk of serious harm, the inability to eliminate risk even with due care, whether it is a matter of common usage, and the appropriateness of the activity to the place where it is conducted).

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 and it will be a complete defense.

C is correct. This is the only available answer choice that provides an effective defense for the mining company. Assumption of the risk may be a complete defense to strict liability where the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of danger. Here, the state employee was at the mine as part of her job, conducting a safety audit. This means she would have been aware that the storage of dynamite presents a safety risk, and as such, by entering the mine, she assumed that risk.

A is incorrect. The location of the activity and whether the activity is common for the area are factors that might be considered in determining whether an activity is «abnormally dangerous,» but the facts specify that the state has already determined that the activity of storing dynamite is abnormally dangerous without reference to the location at which it is conducted. Moreover, the storage of dynamite even in remote locations is often considered to be abnormally dangerous.

B is incorrect. The defendant's status as a manufacturer or other «seller» of the product would be important in a products liability case, but this strict liability action is based on an abnormally dangerous activity rather than on a defective product. In a strict liability action based on engaging in an abnormally dangerous activity, a defendant can be held liable for all the risks inherent in the activity, whatever other actors might be involved in creating those risks.

D is incorrect. The storage facility's conformity to the highest safety standards would be relevant if the action were based on negligence. But in an action based on strict liability for engaging in an abnormally dangerous activity, the defendant will be held responsible even for those risks that could not have been avoided through the use of extraordinary care.