1. Essentially a policy that protects with liability due to the extreme danger regardless of the extent actor attempts safety
2. Strict Vs. Absolute Liability
2.1. Absolute: So danerous there is no thing that will prevent recovery
2.1.1. Bullet designed to make killing power stronger
2.2. Strict: Generally Dangerous Items
3. Types
3.1. Animals
3.1.1. Domestic Animals/Dog Bites
3.1.1.1. Common Law
3.1.1.1.1. Owner was aware of the vicious propensity to bite. Knew or should have known
3.1.1.2. Statutory Liabiliity
3.1.1.2.1. Majority holds but subject to statutory defenses
3.2. Abnormally Dangerous activity
3.2.1. 6 factors
3.2.1.1. 1. existence of risk of harm
3.2.1.2. 2. Likelyhood of harm is great
3.2.1.3. 3. Inability to eliminate the risk by exercise of reasonable care
3.2.1.3.1. To fail: baseline common law of torts is negligence. If danger is avoidable by being careful, there is no need to pursue strict liability
3.2.1.4. 4. Extent to which matter is not common usage
3.2.1.5. 5. Inappropriateness of activity to the place carried on
3.2.1.6. 6. Extent to whcih the community is outweighed by its dangerous activities
3.2.2. If activity can be safeguarded by reasonable care, negligence action, not strict liability
3.2.3. Non-natural use of land
4. Limits to
4.1. If strict is denied, remanded for procedure under negligence
4.2. Not applicable to blasting causing mink to kill cubs, as not typical harm of the act nor foreseeable
4.2.1. Even if knew, strict liability is not guaranteed
4.3. If act is dog knocking into, strict liability is not a justified outcome
4.4. Acts of God
4.4.1. If an intervening act of god cause the harm, not the plant, (no reason to anticipate flood due to hurricane)