...doctrine of "strict liability" to the impounding of waters in artificial channels or reservoirs under the doctrine of "abnormally dangerous activity," formerly denominated as "ultrahazardous activity." Restatement (Second...authorities, once the plaintiff proves the elements of liability stated by the rule, no more is required, and plaintiff will have established that the defendant's activity constitutes negligence. The burden...quantities in a dangerous location in cities. On the other hand, the doctrine has not been followed in many jurisdictions where water is stored in rural areas. Restatement (Second) of Torts, Note to the...

...681, 348 N.W.2d 540 [pesticide spraying not ultrahazardous activity]; Restatement [Second...action in negligence, failure to warn and strict liability for ultrahazardous activity. Plaintiffs also allege that Carmel negligently manufactured and distributed MU-17 and failed to warn June, among...(see, 7 U.S.C. § 136 [bb]; § 136a [c] [5] [C], [D]), its application on Laris' farm cannot be considered an abnormally dangerous activity requiring the imposition of...

...contractor, is chargeable to his employer. AMI 708, Civil. There is actually no proof to sustain this argument. Many years ago aviation was considered to be an ultrahazardous activity. Restatement of the Law...inherently dangerous or ultrahazardous. 7. NEGLIGENCE — CARE REQUIRED IN SELECTING PILOT — QUESTIONS FOR JURY. — Proof as to whether appellee failed to use ordinary care to select a competent independent...so commonplace that it cannot be considered to be either inherently dangerous or ultrahazardous. For a full discussion of this fact see Boyd v. White...

...842 (1953). There is no question but that the storage of explosives is an ultrahazardous activity. Restatement of Torts, Section 520, Comment C. That Cheney was probably liable to Davis on a...connection with" Pitt's operation of the lath mill plant on the Cheney premises. Whether Pitt's activity at the time of the explosion was such as would fall within the meaning of this phrase of the..., is clearly distinguishable. First, and to my mind most important, is the fact that we are here dealing with the use by the indemnitee, without the knowledge of the indemnitor, of an ultrahazardous...

...motion is directed only at the second count of the complaint. It contends that, A fireworks display is not an ultrahazardous activity so as to be subject to the doctrine of strict liability." The motion was heard on March 6, 2000. The second count is based on the doctrine of strict liability imposed on persons who engage in what the FIRST RESTATEMENT refers...activity, " RESTATEMENT (FIRST) OF TORTS § 520 (1938), and the SECOND RESTATEMENT terms "abnormally dangerous activity, " RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 520 (1977). In Connecticut, "[t]he doctrine has...of financial responsibility to satisfy claims for damages" resulting from such displays. The crucial factor is "the unavoidable risk remaining in the activity." RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS, supra...

.... Restatement of Torts § 519 (1938) creates a claim in strict liability for damages caused by an "ultrahazardous activity." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 519 (1977), however, replaces the term...liability. As used in the Restatement, the terms "ultrahazardous...Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 (1977). No useful purpose is served in affirming the dismissal because plaintiffs used "ultrahazardous" rather than "abnormally dangerous," simply to have...

..., for appellees. Torts — Absolute liability — Ultrahazardous activity — Blasting — Damage from vibration or concussion — Restatement, Torts.... 1. One who carries on an ultrahazardous activity is liable to another whose person, land or chattels the actor should recognize as likely to be harmed by the unpreventable miscarriage of the activity for harm resulting thereto from that which makes the activity ultrahazardous, although the utmost care is exercised to prevent the harm. [183] 2. Restatement, Torts...blasting is an ultrahazardous activity; it is also true that in many circumstances blasting is necessary to enable an owner to make advantageous use of his property. While there is a division of opinion in states in which the question has been presented for decision, we think the view announced in section 519 of the Restatement of...

...ultrahazardous activity. Restatement of Torts, §§ 519, 520. See Coughlan v. Grande & Son Inc., 332 Mass. 464, 466..., 185 N.E. 483 (1933); Murphy v. Lowell, 128 Mass. 396, 397 (1880). In comment c. of § 520 of the Restatement, it is stated..., "Blasting is ultrahazardous because high explosives are used and it is impossible to predict with certainty the extent of severity of its consequences." Comment...

..., like the handgun in question, "is an abnormally dangerous and ultrahazardous activity." Appellants, relying on sections 519 and 520 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977), argue that Grogan..."having chosen to engage in this abnormally dangerous and ultrahazardous activity is subject to strict liability for the harm resulting from these activities." Sections 519 and 520 of the Restatement state...animals, applying Restatement (Second) of Torts sections 507 and 509). The proposition that the manufacture or sale of a handgun is an ultrahazardous activity giving rise to...

...ultrahazardous activity as follows: "existence of a high degree of risk of some harm * * *; likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great; inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care; [and] extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage * * *." Restatement (Second...liability for damages caused by engaging in an ultrahazardous activity, although it has never explicitly relied upon the Restatement factors in determining whether a given activity is abnormally...an ultrahazardous activity that subjected the shipper to strict liability under Illinois law. ( Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. Co. v. American Cyanamid Co. (N.D. Ill. 1981), 517 F. Supp. 314.) In so holding, the court relied upon the Restatement formulation...

... drums is a dangerous enterprise, but it is not an ultrahazardous activity; the danger attendant to that activity can be eliminated by the use of proper handling procedures. See Edwards v. Post Transp. Co., 228 Cal.App.3d 980, 279 Cal.Rptr. 231 (1991) (applying Restatement (Second...Torts §§ 519, 520 and holding that delivery of sulfuric acid to storage tank not an ultrahazardous activity because risk could be eliminated through exercise of reasonable care); compare Old Island Fumigation, Inc. v. Barbee, 604 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (applying Restatement (Second...Torts §§ 520, 522 and holding that fumigation is ultrahazardous activity because risk cannot be eliminated by exercise of utmost care). We find no merit in the remaining points on...

...Torts § 78 at 509 n. 7 (4th ed. 1971). In imposing liability on a landowner for an ultrahazardous activity, Berg adopted the test of the Restatement of the Law...distinguished between an "ultrahazardous" activity, for which liability is absolute, and an "inherently dangerous" activity, for which liability depends upon proof of negligence. Id. at 436. In making that distinction, the Court implicitly adopted the rule of landowner liability advocated by section 519 of the original Restatement of...either Marshall v. Welwood or Rylands v. Fletcher, this Court adopted the proposition that "an ultrahazardous activity which introduces an unusual danger into the community...

...." The First Restatement of Torts § 519 (1938), referred to "ultrahazardous" activity, while the Restatement (Second) speaks of "abnormally dangerous" activity to impose strict...that "we are persuaded that whether the storage of dynamite in any particular circumstance is an `ultrahazardous activity' must be determined on a case-by-case basis, as per the various factors outlined by the . . . Restatement (Second...), 243 Ind. 692, 188 N.E.2d 406, the court concluded that blasting was an "ultrahazardous" activity under Restatement of Torts § 519 (1938). The...

...Co., 676 P.2d 25, 27 (Colo.App. 1983) (wherein the same appeals court judge held that power transmission was not an ultrahazardous activity under §§ 519 and 520). Actually the Restatement (Second...authority we think that Plaintiffs have alleged facts that may establish that Shell engaged in an ultrahazardous activity or, to use the proper term under the Restatement (Second), an abnormally...under CERCLA § 107(a), 42 U.S.C.A. § 9607(a), and damages from Shell under six diversity claims including an "ultrahazardous activity" strict liability...

...claims based on strict or absolute liability for ultrahazardous activity. Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15. Pp. 798-803...activity, rather than any attenuated notion of common-law trespass. See Restatement of Torts §§ 519, 520(e); W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 75 (4th ed. 1971). While a leading North Carolina case on the...he who engages in ultrahazardous activity must pay his way regardless of what precautions he may have taken. Guilford Realty Ins. Co. v...

.... The duty of one who carries on an ultrahazardous activity is defined in Restatement, Torts § 519, p. 41: "Except as stated in §§ 521-4, one who carries on an...employee of the contractor resulting from ultrahazardous activity of the contractor under the theory that an owner has a nondelegable duty to see that the work is performed with the requisite care, since...the dangerous instrumentality, inherently dangerous activity, or ultrahazardous activity concepts are but facets, is discussed in Prosser on Torts (3d ed.) § 74, p. 508...

..., this statute may present an obstacle to plaintiffs' claim that the sale of the gun was an ultrahazardous activity. Plaintiffs attempt to circumvent the problems posed by products liability by urging that the sale of handguns to the public is an ultrahazardous activity. Under section 519 of the Restatement (Second.... Illinois has long recognized strict liability for damage caused by engaging in an abnormally dangerous or ultrahazardous activity, although it has never explicitly relied upon the Restatement factors.... Finally, a federal district court sitting in diversity held that shipping acrylonitrile, a hazardous and toxic substance, was an ultrahazardous activity that subjected the shipper to strict liability under Illinois law. Indiana Belt Harbor Railroad Co., 517 F. Supp. 314. In so holding, the court relied upon the Restatement formulation...

.... Kusturiss, for appellees. Torts — Ultrahazardous activity — Blasting — Liability without fault — Restatement, Torts...Restatement, Torts, § 519, is applicable to damage caused by ultrahazardous activity (such as blasting) undertaken by an independent contractor on a public as well as a private project. [362-5.... It is the general rule that with the exception of the Government or a Governmental Agency, one who carries on an ultrahazardous activity, such as blasting, has an absolute liability for damages resulting from that ultrahazardous activity. See Federoff et ux. v. Harrison Construction Company, 362 Pa. 181, 66 A.2d 817, and Section 519 of the Restatement of...