The Law School Toolbox Podcast: Tools for Law Students from 1L to the Bar Exam, and Beyond
Aug 10, 2026 · 16 min · 7 segments
Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! This is Part 1 of a two-part series on strict liability as it relates to animals (both wild and domestic), as well as certain super dangerous…
First off, why don't we talk about some background on the law at issue for today.
As you probably already remember from torts class, some torts are intentional, like battery or assault, and one required element the plaintiff needs to prove is, of course, intent.
Then there's negligence, a theory under which a defendant can be held liable not because they intended harm, but because they were somehow just not careful enough, and harm ended up happening.
There's also a third type of liability, which is what we are talking about today, strict liability, and this arises when it doesn't even matter what the defendant intended, and we don't even care how careful they tried to be.
Strict liability means there are situations in which the defendant is on the hook for damages simply for undertaking the activity in the first place.
In other words, there are certain activities that courts have decided are so dangerous that nothing else matters.
If someone gets hurt and you're doing one of these super dangerous things, you are liable.
And by the way, as far as terminology goes, sometimes these are called ultra-hazardous activities, like in the first Restatement of Torts, or sometimes they're called abnormally dangerous activities, like in the second Restatement of Torts.
Both of these are so dangerous that the law does not consider how careful you tried to be.
If you're blowing things up with dynamite or housing a tiger and someone gets hurt, you're held liable.
The basic rule for strict liability in these situations for abnormally dangerous activity is a defendant is strictly liable for damages caused to a plaintiff when engaging in an abnormally dangerous activity.
An abnormally dangerous activity is defined as an activity that, one, creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors, which is, two, not an activity of common usage in the community.
We need a dangerous activity that is also not common in the community, and based on that activity alone, we can pretty much foresee someone is at risk of getting significantly hurt.
First off, why don't we talk about some background on the law at issue for today.
As you probably already remember from torts class, some torts are intentional, like battery or assault, and one required element the plaintiff needs to prove is, of course, intent.
Then there's negligence, a theory under which a defendant can be held liable not because they intended harm, but because they were somehow just not careful enough, and harm ended up happening.
There's also a third type of liability, which is what we are talking about today, strict liability, and this arises when it doesn't even matter what the defendant intended, and we don't even care how careful they tried to be.
Strict liability means there are situations in which the defendant is on the hook for damages simply for undertaking the activity in the first place.
In other words, there are certain activities that courts have decided are so dangerous that nothing else matters.
If someone gets hurt and you're doing one of these super dangerous things, you are liable.
And by the way, as far as terminology goes, sometimes these are called ultra-hazardous activities, like in the first Restatement of Torts, or sometimes they're called abnormally dangerous activities, like in the second Restatement of Torts.
Both of these are so dangerous that the law does not consider how careful you tried to be.
If you're blowing things up with dynamite or housing a tiger and someone gets hurt, you're held liable.
The basic rule for strict liability in these situations for abnormally dangerous activity is a defendant is strictly liable for damages caused to a plaintiff when engaging in an abnormally dangerous activity.
An abnormally dangerous activity is defined as an activity that, one, creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors, which is, two, not an activity of common usage in the community.
We need a dangerous activity that is also not common in the community, and based on that activity alone, we can pretty much foresee someone is at risk of getting significantly hurt.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.