The three situations where strict liability is imposed
What are (1) injury from wild animals owned by or in the possession of the defendant; (2) abnormally dangerous activities undertaken by the defendant; and (3) products liability?
These are the six defendants a defendant can raise to defend himself against an intentional tort allegation.
What are (1) consent, (2) defense of self, (3) defense of third parties, (4) defense of property, (5) defense of private necessity, (6) defense of public necessity.
The party that has the burden to establish strict liability.
Who is the plaintiff?
This is what we are determining when asking whether defendant acted in a way that showed "purpose to cause a consequence, or that a consequence would be very likely to occur."
What is intent?
The only three situations in which duty arises under strict liability.
What are (1) the duty to prevent harm from wild animals that one owns or possesses; (2) the duty to prevent harm from abnormally dangerous activities that one engages in; and (3) the duty to prevent harm from defects in products that one manufactures or sells?
This is what a defendant's liability is based on.
Strict liability for wild animals does not generally apply to domesticated animals, such as typical pets or farm animals, unless there is a known dangerous tendency of a particular animal. This rule states that if a domesticated animal displays a dangerous tendency that is not know, liability for the harm is based on negligence, not on strict liability.
What is the "one bite" rule?
These two ways are how a plaintiff can show that the defendant intended to harm.
Factors to consider in determining whether an activity is abnormally dangerous (2).
What are (1) that the activity must create a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors; and (2) that the activity is not one of common use?
This is the rule that states under common law that when "she started it" is not a defense (unless it's in your own home).