A manufacturing plant storing highly volatile explosives is involved in a wind-related incident where a tile damages a passing car. Is the driver likely to prevail under strict liability?

• A. Yes, because explosives storage is always strict liability laibility.
• B. No, because the harm did not result from the abnormally dangerous activity.
• C. Yes, if the plant failed to implement safety measures.
• D. No, because strict liability does not apply to property damage.

Answer: (B)

Concept: Strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities requires that the harm be of the type that the activity itself poses, even if reasonable care is used.

A plant storing highly volatile explosives is an abnormally dangerous activity because of the risk of explosions and related debris. But the incident described—wind causes a tile to damage a passing car—shows harm that doesn’t appear to be a direct or foreseeable result of that dangerous activity. If the injury or property damage isn’t the kind of harm caused by the explosive hazard (explosion, blast debris, chemical release), strict liability typically wouldn’t attach, regardless of safety measures or the level of care exercised. Therefore, the driver is unlikely to prevail under strict liability.

Exploring the other options: assuming strict liability applies only to the type of harm associated with the activity, not every consequence of living near a hazardous facility; safety measures don’t convert a non-qualifying harm into a qualifying one; and strict liability can extend to property damage in the right context, but the harm here isn’t shown to be the kind caused by the abnormally dangerous activity.