Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Distinguishing The Concept Of Strict Liability For Ultra-Hazardous Activities From Strict Products Liability Under Section 402a Of The Restatement (Second) Of Torts: Two Parallel Lines Of Reasoning That Should Never Meet, Charles E. Cantú
Faculty Articles
Strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities is entirely different from strict products liability. Since strict liability has been applied to so-called dangerous or ultra-hazardous activities, the application has been limited to instances where the defendant has, for his own purpose, created an abnormal risk of harm to those surrounding him, and therefore should pay for any resulting injury. Section 520 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts explains how one weighs the risk of harm emanating from ultra-hazardous activities against the appropriateness to its surroundings. This is not, however, how one determines the applicability of strict liability in the area of defective …
Internet Property Rights: E-Trespass., John D. Saba Jr.
Internet Property Rights: E-Trespass., John D. Saba Jr.
St. Mary's Law Journal
Plaintiffs whose Internet property rights were violated have depended on the common law tort of trespass to chattels. Plaintiffs in Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek and CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. successfully argued defendants trespassed their chattels. In Thrifty-Tel, defendants hacked into plaintiff’s system to obtain long-distance access codes. The court reasoned that electronic signals were tangible and indirect interference in the form of electronic trespass could support a claim for trespass to chattels. In CompuServe Inc., defendants used plaintiff's internet server to send out mass emails to plaintiff’s clients. The court upheld a permanent injunction holding that electronic signals …