There is one exception to the strict
liability standard imposed by the DOLA.
Not exact matches
In 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that «pit bulls» are «inherently dangerous» and
imposed a new strict
liability standard on landlords who knew or had reason to know that a tenant has a pit bull on the premises.
The plaintiff's claims required our attorneys to undertake an extensive analysis of the
standards for
imposing liability on municipalities, and whether the Due Process Clause was implicated by either the state - created danger doctrine or the special relationship doctrine.
Florida courts
impose different
standards in assessing
liability under negligence and strict products
liability.
The strict
liability test is a very low
standard that
imposes liability on the owner regardless of whether the owner was in the wrong.
Therefore, a strict
liability standard is more applicable because it
imposes constructive knowledge of the item on the manufacturer.
Accordingly, reading the section pursuant to the principle of ejusdem generis, it is clear that the application of any special
liabilities or higher
standards imposed by the CPA were not meant to be preserved under s. 9 (1) of the OLA.
Any
standard less than but - for, however, simply represents a decision to
impose liability without causation.
Both the lower court and the Court of Appeal held that the split in
liability of 25 per cent for the child and 75 per cent for the school under «occupiers»
liability» was reasonable and
imposed a proper
standard of care on the school district.