Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Strict Liability

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Strict LiabilityQuestion 1 of 20

A homeowner, frustrated with a persistent termite problem, purchased a commercial-grade fumigation canister designed for use by licensed professionals in large industrial spaces. Disregarding the warnings on the label, he activated the canister in the crawl space of his suburban home and left for the weekend. The toxic gas, which was heavier than air, seeped through the ground and into the basement of his next-door neighbor's house. The neighbor's family became ill from inhaling the fumes.

In a lawsuit by the neighbor against the homeowner, is the homeowner likely to be held strictly liable? Select one.

Yes, because fumigating with a commercial-grade poison in a residential area is an abnormally dangerous activity.

No, because the homeowner's actions constituted negligence, not an abnormally dangerous activity.

No, because pest control is a matter of common usage in residential neighborhoods.

Yes, but only if the neighbor can prove the homeowner violated a statute regarding the use of such chemicals.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Strict Liability

Practice Strict Liability in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Strict Liability, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

In a lawsuit by the neighbor against the homeowner, is the homeowner likely to be held strictly liable? Select one.

Yes, because fumigating with a commercial-grade poison in a residential area is an abnormally dangerous activity. (correct answer)
No, because the homeowner's actions constituted negligence, not an abnormally dangerous activity.
No, because pest control is a matter of common usage in residential neighborhoods.
Yes, but only if the neighbor can prove the homeowner violated a statute regarding the use of such chemicals.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. While pest control is a common activity, the method used here—employing a highly toxic, commercial-grade fumigant not intended for residential use—transforms it into an abnormally dangerous activity. It involves a high degree of risk of serious harm, the risk cannot be eliminated with reasonable care by an amateur, and it is not a matter of common usage for a homeowner. Therefore, the homeowner is subject to strict liability. The fact that the conduct was also negligent (B) does not preclude a strict liability claim. The argument that pest control is common usage (C) fails because the specific type of fumigation was not. Proving a statutory violation (D) is not necessary for a common law strict liability claim.

Question 2

A demolition company was hired to demolish a large building in a dense urban area using controlled explosives. The company took all required precautions, including obtaining permits and clearing a wide safety perimeter. During the demolition, the ground vibrations from a blast caused a crack to form in the wall of a nearby art gallery. This crack led to a rare, 200-year-old porcelain vase, which was mounted on the wall, falling to the floor and shattering. The gallery owner sued the demolition company for the value of the vase.

What is the likely outcome of the gallery owner's lawsuit? Select one.

The company will win, because it exercised reasonable care and was not negligent in its operations.
The company will win, because the destruction of an unusually fragile and valuable vase was not a foreseeable consequence of the blasting.
The gallery owner will win, because blasting in an urban area is an abnormally dangerous activity, and the company is strictly liable for the harm caused. (correct answer)
The gallery owner will win, but only if they can prove that the vibrations exceeded the maximum intensity allowed by the company's permit.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. Blasting with explosives is a classic example of an abnormally dangerous activity, for which strict liability is imposed. Under strict liability, the defendant is liable for any harm that results from the activity, regardless of the level of care exercised. The fact that the company took all precautions (A) is not a defense. The 'eggshell plaintiff' rule applies, meaning the defendant takes the victim as they find them; thus, the unusual fragility of the vase (B) does not relieve the defendant of liability for the full extent of the harm. Proving a permit violation (D) would be relevant to negligence per se, but it is not necessary for a strict liability claim.

Question 3

A pet store sold a monkey to a customer. The monkey appeared docile at the store. Two days later, the monkey escaped from the customer's home, entered a neighbor's open window, and, while jumping around the neighbor's living room, knocked over a laptop, destroying it. The neighbor sued the customer who owned the monkey.

Is the customer liable for the damage to the laptop? Select one.

No, because the pet store, as the seller of a wild animal, is the party that is strictly liable.
No, because the damage was not the result of the monkey's commonly understood dangerous propensity to attack people.
Yes, but only if the neighbor can prove the customer was negligent in allowing the monkey to escape.
Yes, because as the owner of a wild animal, the customer is strictly liable for damage it causes while at large. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter a question involving wild animals causing damage, you're dealing with strict liability principles in tort law. The key issue is determining who bears responsibility when a wild animal causes harm while not in its owner's immediate control. Under the common law doctrine of strict liability for wild animals, the owner of a wild animal is absolutely liable for any damage the animal causes, regardless of the owner's level of care or the animal's past behavior. This liability extends to situations where the animal escapes and causes damage while "at large." A monkey is considered a wild animal, even if it appears docile, because it retains its inherently unpredictable nature. Answer D is correct because the customer, as the current owner of the monkey, bears strict liability for the laptop damage. The monkey's escape and subsequent property destruction triggers this absolute liability regardless of whether the customer was negligent. Answer A is wrong because liability doesn't remain with the pet store after sale—ownership and its accompanying strict liability transferred to the customer upon purchase. Answer B misunderstands the scope of strict liability, which covers all damage caused by wild animals, not just injuries from aggressive behavior like attacks. The doctrine protects against the unpredictable nature of wild animals generally. Answer C incorrectly applies a negligence standard when strict liability governs—the neighbor doesn't need to prove the customer's fault. Remember: Wild animal ownership equals strict liability. The owner is responsible for any damage the animal causes, period. No proof of negligence or dangerous propensities required.

Question 4

You are an attorney representing a client who owns a large tract of land. An energy company has been conducting hydraulic fracturing, or 'fracking,' operations on an adjacent property for the past year. Your client's well water has recently become contaminated with chemicals used in the fracking process, making it unsafe to drink. Your client wants to sue the energy company for the contamination.

To prepare the strongest possible case for your client, which of the following legal theories should be your primary focus of research and investigation? Select one.

Public nuisance.
Battery, based on the non-consensual contact of the chemicals with your client's property.
Negligence per se, based on a likely violation of environmental regulations.
Strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity. (correct answer)

Explanation: When analyzing environmental contamination cases, you need to identify which tort theory provides the strongest foundation for liability. The key is matching the nature of the activity to the appropriate legal framework. Strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities (D) is your strongest approach here. Fracking involves injecting high-pressure chemical solutions deep underground, creating inherent risks of groundwater contamination that cannot be eliminated through reasonable care. Courts increasingly recognize fracking as abnormally dangerous because it's not a matter of common usage, involves high risk of serious harm, and the risks cannot be eliminated by exercising utmost care. Under strict liability, you don't need to prove the energy company was negligent—only that their abnormally dangerous activity caused the contamination. Public nuisance (A) is weaker because it typically requires interference with rights common to the general public, not individual property damage. While contamination could affect multiple landowners, your client's private well contamination is better framed as a private harm. Battery (B) fails because it requires intent to cause harmful contact with a person, not property. The contamination of land and water doesn't constitute the personal, intentional touching that battery requires. Negligence per se (C) assumes you can identify specific regulatory violations, but environmental regulations are complex and proving violations may be difficult. Even with violations, you'd still need to establish causation and that the regulation was designed to protect against this type of harm. Focus on strict liability for environmental contamination cases involving inherently risky industrial activities—it eliminates the burden of proving fault while addressing the policy concern of making dangerous activities bear their true costs.

Question 5

A circus featured an act with a trained bear. During one performance, a spectator in the front row, who was intoxicated, began heckling the bear and its trainer. The spectator then threw a plastic bottle, which hit the bear. The startled bear lunged forward, breaking free from its trainer, and mauled the spectator. The spectator sued the circus.

Is the spectator likely to recover from the circus? Select one.

Yes, because a circus is strictly liable for any injuries caused by the wild animals it displays.
No, because the spectator's own actions in provoking the bear were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. (correct answer)
Yes, because the trainer was negligent in failing to control the bear after it was hit with the bottle.
No, because the circus is not liable for injuries to spectators who are voluntarily intoxicated.

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of proximate causation in tort law, particularly how intervening acts affect liability chains. When analyzing animal attack cases, you need to examine whether the plaintiff's own conduct breaks the causal connection between the defendant's actions and the resulting harm. The spectator's recovery fails because his deliberate provocation of the bear constitutes the sole proximate cause of his injuries. By throwing the bottle while intoxicated and heckling, he created the very dangerous situation that led to his harm. This voluntary, intervening act breaks the causal chain between any potential circus negligence and the attack, making the circus not liable for the resulting injuries. Answer A incorrectly applies strict liability too broadly. While circuses may face strict liability for wild animal injuries, this doesn't eliminate proximate cause requirements - the plaintiff's conduct can still break the liability chain. Answer C mischaracterizes the trainer's duty and ignores that the spectator's provocation was the precipitating cause, not any failure to control the bear afterward. The trainer cannot be expected to instantly restrain a startled wild animal. Answer D creates a nonexistent rule about intoxicated spectators. Voluntary intoxication alone doesn't bar recovery - the issue here is the spectator's provocative actions, not his intoxication status. Remember that even in strict liability cases, proximate causation matters. When a plaintiff's deliberate misconduct directly creates the dangerous situation, it can sever the causal link to defendant liability, regardless of the underlying legal theory.

Question 6

A company stores flammable industrial solvents in large tanks on its property. A thief broke into the fenced and locked property at night, intending to steal equipment. While trying to siphon gasoline from a truck, the thief negligently spilled some and then carelessly lit a cigarette, igniting the spilled gasoline. The resulting fire spread to the solvent tanks, causing a massive explosion that damaged homes in a nearby neighborhood. The homeowners sued the company under a theory of strict liability.

Will the homeowners' strict liability claim likely succeed? Select one.

Yes, because storing large quantities of flammable solvents is an abnormally dangerous activity.
No, because the intentional criminal act of the thief was an unforeseeable, superseding cause of the explosion. (correct answer)
Yes, because the company is responsible for all harmful consequences resulting from the dangerous materials on its land.
No, unless the company was negligent in its security measures to prevent trespassers from entering the property.

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities and when superseding causes break the chain of causation. When you see strict liability combined with intervening criminal acts, focus on whether the criminal conduct was the type of risk that made the activity abnormally dangerous in the first place. While storing flammable solvents can indeed constitute an abnormally dangerous activity, strict liability isn't absolute. The defendant can escape liability when an unforeseeable superseding cause breaks the causal chain. Here, the thief's criminal trespass and negligent handling of gasoline while smoking was an intentional criminal act that was unforeseeable and independent of the risks that make solvent storage abnormally dangerous. The explosion resulted from the thief's negligence, not from the inherent dangers of proper solvent storage. Answer A incorrectly assumes that abnormally dangerous activity automatically equals liability regardless of causation. While solvent storage may be abnormally dangerous, this doesn't guarantee strict liability when unforeseeable criminal acts intervene. Answer C is wrong because it suggests absolute liability for all consequences, which doesn't exist even under strict liability theory. Answer D incorrectly applies negligence principles by focusing on security measures, but strict liability doesn't require proof of negligence - the issue is superseding causation, not the company's fault in preventing trespass. Remember: Even with strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, defendants can escape liability when unforeseeable criminal acts of third parties break the causal chain. The criminal conduct must be related to the specific risks that made the activity abnormally dangerous.

Question 7

A farmer hired an agricultural aviation company to spray pesticides on his cotton field. Due to an unexpected shift in wind, a small amount of the pesticide drifted onto an adjacent organic farm, contaminating a crop of heirloom tomatoes and rendering them unsaleable as organic produce. The organic farmer sued the aviation company. The area is predominantly agricultural, and aerial spraying is a common practice for large farms in the region.

In the organic farmer's action against the aviation company, which legal theory provides the farmer with the strongest basis for recovery? Select one.

Negligence, because the pilot failed to account for a potential wind shift.
Strict liability, because aerial spraying of toxic chemicals constitutes an abnormally dangerous activity. (correct answer)
Private nuisance, because the spraying interfered with the farmer's use and enjoyment of his land.
Trespass to land, because the pesticide physically invaded the farmer's property.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. While other theories might apply, strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity is the strongest claim. Courts often classify crop dusting or aerial spraying of pesticides as abnormally dangerous because it involves a high degree of risk of serious harm that cannot be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care. While the activity's common usage in the area is a factor, the inherent danger of toxic drift often outweighs it. Negligence (A) would require proving a breach of duty, which may be difficult if the wind shift was truly unforeseeable. Nuisance (C) and trespass (D) are also plausible, but strict liability is the most direct theory that imposes liability without fault for this type of harm.

Question 8

A chemical company maintained a large holding pond for toxic wastewater. The pond was located in a remote desert area, miles from any town. Ten years after the pond was created, a developer built a new retirement community just a half-mile from the company's property line. Recently, due to an unforeseeable geological fissure, a small amount of wastewater leaked from the pond and contaminated the community's groundwater. The company had used state-of-the-art liners and conducted regular inspections.

In a strict liability lawsuit by the residents of the retirement community, which fact is most likely to support the chemical company's defense? Select one.

The company was not negligent, as it used state-of-the-art liners and inspections.
The leakage was caused by an unforeseeable geological event.
The retirement community was built long after the toxic pond was established.
The holding of toxic wastewater was appropriate to the remote desert location when it began. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. In determining whether an activity is abnormally dangerous, courts consider several factors, including the appropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on. The company's strongest argument is that when it began the activity, the location was remote and entirely appropriate for storing toxic waste, minimizing the risk to others. While the subsequent arrival of the community changes the present-day analysis, the original appropriateness is a key factor in the company's defense. Lack of negligence (A) is not a defense to strict liability. An unforeseeable event (B) is also not a defense if it causes the dangerous propensity of the activity to manifest. The fact that the community 'came to the nuisance' (C) is a relevant argument, but D more directly addresses one of the core factors of the abnormally dangerous activity analysis.

Question 9

You are representing a woman who was injured at a professional fireworks display. Your client attended the display, which was held in a large, open field. She initially sat in the designated spectator area but, wanting a better view, moved to an area much closer to the launch site. This area was cordoned off with rope and marked with signs that read, "DANGER - AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY." A misfired firework shell exploded on the ground inside the restricted area, and a piece of shrapnel struck and injured your client.

What is the fireworks company's strongest defense to a strict liability claim brought by your client? Select one.

The company exercised the utmost care in setting up and executing the fireworks display.
The client was a trespasser in the restricted area, to whom no duty was owed.
The client knowingly assumed the risk of injury by entering a clearly marked danger zone. (correct answer)
The misfire was caused by a manufacturing defect in the firework shell, making the manufacturer liable.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The conducting of professional fireworks displays is generally considered an abnormally dangerous activity subject to strict liability. However, assumption of the risk is a valid defense. By consciously disregarding the warning signs and roped-off area to enter a zone she knew to be dangerous, the client knowingly and voluntarily subjected herself to the risk of injury from a misfired firework. This is the company's strongest defense. Lack of negligence (A) is not a defense to strict liability. The client's status as a trespasser (B) is less relevant in a strict liability context than her assumption of the risk. While the manufacturer might also be liable (D), this would not absolve the fireworks company of its own liability to the client, but it is not the company's best defense against the client's claim.

Question 10

In a strict liability lawsuit by the residents of the retirement community, which fact is most likely to support the chemical company's defense? Select one.

The company was not negligent, as it used state-of-the-art liners and inspections.
The leakage was caused by an unforeseeable geological event.
The retirement community was built long after the toxic pond was established.
The holding of toxic wastewater was appropriate to the remote desert location when it began. (correct answer)

Question 11

A research laboratory legally keeps a number of venomous snakes for the purpose of producing antivenom. Despite the lab's exercise of extreme care in handling the snakes, one snake escaped its enclosure and entered the building's ventilation system. It traveled through the ducts and emerged in an adjacent office suite leased by an accounting firm, where it bit an accountant. The accountant sued the laboratory.

What is the likely outcome of the accountant's lawsuit against the laboratory? Select one.

The laboratory will be liable, because keeping venomous snakes is an abnormally dangerous activity. (correct answer)
The laboratory will be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for its employees' conduct.
The laboratory will not be liable, because it exercised extreme care to prevent the snake's escape.
The laboratory will not be liable, because the social utility of producing antivenom outweighs the risks.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. Keeping venomous snakes for commercial purposes constitutes an abnormally dangerous activity under the Restatement approach. Such activities involve a high degree of risk that cannot be eliminated by reasonable care, and strict liability applies regardless of precautions taken. While wild animal liability could also apply, the abnormally dangerous activity analysis is more direct here. The laboratory's exercise of extreme care (C) is irrelevant under strict liability. Social utility (D) is a factor in determining whether an activity is abnormally dangerous, but does not provide a defense once strict liability is established. Respondeat superior (B) does not apply to this scenario involving animal escape.

Question 12

In the organic farmer's action against the aviation company, which legal theory provides the farmer with the strongest basis for recovery? Select one.

Negligence, because the pilot failed to account for a potential wind shift.
Strict liability, because aerial spraying of toxic chemicals constitutes an abnormally dangerous activity. (correct answer)
Private nuisance, because the spraying interfered with the farmer's use and enjoyment of his land.
Trespass to land, because the pesticide physically invaded the farmer's property.

Question 13

A farmer's herd of cattle pushed through a weak section of fencing and wandered onto an adjacent highway. A motorist driving at the speed limit rounded a curve and, unable to stop in time, collided with one of the cows. The motorist was seriously injured and her car was destroyed. The farmer inspected his fences regularly and was not aware of the specific weakness in the fence.

Under the common law rule for trespassing animals, is the farmer liable for the motorist's injuries? Select one.

Yes, because owners of livestock are strictly liable for property damage and personal injuries caused by their wandering animals.
No, because the farmer was not negligent in maintaining his fences.
No, because the common law rule of strict liability for trespassing animals applies only to damage to real property, not to personal injuries on a public highway. (correct answer)
Yes, but only if the jurisdiction has a 'fencing out' statute requiring landowners to fence their property against livestock.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The traditional common law rule imposes strict liability on owners of livestock for property damage caused by their animals trespassing on another's land. However, this rule of strict liability generally does not extend to personal injuries caused by livestock wandering onto a public highway. In such cases, the plaintiff must prove the owner was negligent in containing the animals. Since the farmer was not negligent (B), he would not be liable under a negligence theory. Therefore, under the common law, the farmer is not strictly liable for the motorist's personal injuries. Answer A misstates the scope of the rule. 'Fencing out' statutes (D) are a modification of the common law and are not the default rule.

Question 14

A person kept a pet tiger, a wild animal, in a secure enclosure on their rural property. One night, a severe thunderstorm caused a tree to fall on the enclosure, creating an opening through which the tiger escaped. The tiger wandered onto a nearby road. A driver, seeing the tiger in her headlights, swerved to avoid it, lost control of her car, and crashed into a ditch, sustaining injuries. The tiger never made physical contact with the driver or her car.

In a suit by the driver against the tiger's owner, is the driver likely to prevail? Select one.

Yes, because an owner of a wild animal is strictly liable for harm caused by the animal's dangerous propensities. (correct answer)
No, because the tiger's escape was caused by an act of God, not by the owner's negligence.
No, because the driver's injuries were not caused by a direct attack from the tiger.
Yes, but only if the owner was negligent in the construction or placement of the enclosure.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. Owners of wild animals are strictly liable for harm resulting from the animal's dangerous propensities. A tiger's tendency to escape confinement and create fear and panic in humans is one such propensity. The harm—a car crash resulting from a driver's panicked reaction to the tiger on the road—is a foreseeable consequence of a wild animal being at large. The lack of negligence in the animal's escape, such as an act of God (B), is not a defense to strict liability. The harm does not need to be from a direct attack (C); indirect harm is recoverable if it's a foreseeable result of the animal's dangerous nature. A showing of negligence (D) is not required for a strict liability claim.

Question 15

What is the likely outcome of the gallery owner's lawsuit? Select one.

The company will win, because it exercised reasonable care and was not negligent in its operations.
The company will win, because the destruction of an unusually fragile and valuable vase was not a foreseeable consequence of the blasting.
The gallery owner will win, because blasting in an urban area is an abnormally dangerous activity, and the company is strictly liable for the harm caused. (correct answer)
The gallery owner will win, but only if they can prove that the vibrations exceeded the maximum intensity allowed by the company's permit.

Question 16

A homeowner owned a dog with known vicious propensities, as it had bitten a mail carrier a year earlier. The homeowner kept the dog in a fenced backyard. A 16-year-old neighbor, trying to retrieve a frisbee that had flown over the fence, climbed the fence to enter the backyard. The dog, which was unchained inside the yard, attacked and bit the neighbor. The jurisdiction follows common law rules for animal liability.

Will the neighbor likely prevail in a strict liability action against the homeowner? Select one.

No, because the neighbor was a trespasser and the homeowner owed him no duty to protect him from the dog.
No, because the neighbor assumed the risk of being bitten when he knowingly entered a fenced yard containing a dog.
Yes, because the homeowner is strictly liable for injuries inflicted by a domestic animal with known vicious propensities. (correct answer)
Yes, but only if the homeowner was negligent in failing to otherwise restrain the dog within the fenced yard.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. At common law, an owner of a domestic animal is strictly liable for injuries caused by that animal if the owner knew or should have known of the animal's dangerous propensities. Here, the prior bite establishes this knowledge. Traditionally, this strict liability extends even to trespassers. The rules limiting a landowner's duty to trespassers (A) apply to negligence actions concerning conditions on the land, not to strict liability for dangerous animals. While assumption of risk (B) can be a defense, simply climbing a fence to retrieve a frisbee is unlikely to be deemed knowing and voluntary assumption of the risk of a vicious attack, especially for a minor. A negligence showing (D) is not required for this strict liability claim.

Question 17

A driver for a freight company was transporting a tanker truck full of gasoline, a hazardous and flammable substance. The driver was obeying all traffic laws and driving with reasonable care. Another driver, who was illegally texting while driving, ran a red light and crashed into the side of the tanker truck. The impact ruptured the tank, causing a massive explosion and fire that injured a pedestrian on a nearby sidewalk.

In a lawsuit by the pedestrian against the freight company, will the pedestrian likely prevail on a theory of strict liability? Select one.

Yes, because transporting large quantities of gasoline is an abnormally dangerous activity.
No, because the sole proximate cause of the accident was the other driver's negligence.
No, because the freight company's driver was exercising due care.
Yes, because it is foreseeable that negligent drivers may cause collisions with tanker trucks. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. Transporting large quantities of gasoline through populated areas is often considered an abnormally dangerous activity. Under strict liability, an intervening negligent act of a third party will not relieve the defendant of liability if that act was foreseeable. It is highly foreseeable that other drivers on the road may be negligent and cause a collision. Therefore, the other driver's negligence is a foreseeable intervening force, not a superseding cause that would break the causal chain (B). The fact that the activity is abnormally dangerous (A) is correct but doesn't fully address the causation issue. The exercise of due care (C) is not a defense to strict liability.

Question 18

In a suit by the driver against the tiger's owner, is the driver likely to prevail? Select one.

Yes, because an owner of a wild animal is strictly liable for harm caused by the animal's dangerous propensities. (correct answer)
No, because the tiger's escape was caused by an act of God, not by the owner's negligence.
No, because the driver's injuries were not caused by a direct attack from the tiger.
Yes, but only if the owner was negligent in the construction or placement of the enclosure.

Question 19

A construction company was using a pile driver to install foundations for a new skyscraper. The constant, powerful vibrations from the pile driver caused structural damage to a historic building located across the street. The construction company was fully compliant with all local ordinances and industry standards for pile driving. The owner of the historic building sued the construction company.

If a court determines that pile driving in this context is an abnormally dangerous activity, what will be the result of the lawsuit? Select one.

The construction company will be liable for the damage. (correct answer)
The construction company will not be liable because pile driving is essential for urban construction.
The construction company will not be liable because it complied with all ordinances and industry standards.
The construction company will be liable only if the building owner can prove the vibrations exceeded a reasonable level.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The question asks for the result if the court deems the activity abnormally dangerous. If an activity is classified as abnormally dangerous, strict liability applies. This means the defendant is liable for harm proximately caused by the activity, regardless of fault. The company's compliance with regulations (C) and the social utility of the activity (B) are factors considered in determining if the activity is abnormally dangerous, but they are not defenses once that determination is made. A strict liability claim does not require proof that the vibrations were unreasonable (D); it only requires proof that the activity caused the harm.

Question 20

Is the customer liable for the damage to the laptop? Select one.

No, because the pet store, as the seller of a wild animal, is the party that is strictly liable.
No, because the damage was not the result of the monkey's commonly understood dangerous propensity to attack people.
Yes, but only if the neighbor can prove the customer was negligent in allowing the monkey to escape.
Yes, because as the owner of a wild animal, the customer is strictly liable for damage it causes while at large. (correct answer)