P was injured when a stray bullet ricocheted during the course of firearm practice in a nearby gravel pit and caused him to fall from a truck.
P alleged that the Ds should be strictly liable since the injuries arose from an ultra-hazardous activity.
Procedural History:
Trial court found for D, no strict liability.
IL COA affirmed, no strict liability.
Issues:
What factors should be applied to determine if an activity is abnormally dangerous?
Holding/Rule:
Section 520 of the Restatement sets out several factors to consider in determining if an activity is abnormally dangerous…
Existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land, or chattels of others
Likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great
Inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care
Extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage
Inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried out
Extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes
Reasoning:
The presence of more than one factor, but not all of them, will be necessary to declare the activity ultra-hazardous as a matter of law so as to hold the actor strictly liable.
The risk of harm can be virtually eliminated by the exercise of reasonable or even utmost care under the circumstances.
The use of firearms if a matter of common usage and the harm posed comes from their misuse rather than from their inherent nature alone.
The activity in this case was carried on at a firing range in a quarry located somewhere near the city of Freeport (an appropriate place).
The target practice is of some social utility to the community since law enforcement officers were improving their weapon skills.
