DuPont zinc smelting site strict liability case for property contamination

Defenses, Privileges, And Damages

Strict Liability

Immunities

Statute of Limitations

Defamation and Invasion of Privacy

Defenses, Privileges, and Damages

Mass Tort Law Defense

The court ruled that the damages claimed from DuPont was primarily on the allegations of injuring local residents through the contamination of their property by the release of harmful substances like cadmium, arsenic and lead at the zinc smelting site of the company.

The case is a classic example of strict Tort. This is a case where the accused did not intentionally intend to cause harm to the injured and yet the actions resulted in alleged harm and discomfort. In this case, though DuPont did not intend to cause harm directly, the actions of the company allegedly caused harm to the local residents in terms of contamination and the injury to their property.

In the future companies would be more careful to take care of the possible harmful activities like the extraction and use of harmful chemicals during the production process and the proper and safe disposal of such waste. This verdict is clearly a precedent for future such allegations of strict tort and unintentional negligence (Batten, 2011).

The medical monitoring expenses would cost nearly $500 million as the plaintiffs claimed that the health factors affected by the poisonous chemicals be monitored over a period of 40 years that included the anticipated escalation in medical expenses over a period of 40 years.

DuPont can appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals against the verdict.

UNIT 6: Strict Liability

Discussion 2

In the case Wright v. Schum, Jason Wright is the plaintiff and John Schum is the respondent in the Supreme Court of Nevada. This is a case of a dog bite were 11-year-old Jason Wright was bitten by an escaped pit bulldog on while he was walking down the road after a swimming session. The verdict was in favor of Jason where the court ruled against the owner of the pit bulldog but the court dismissed the case against respondent Schum the landlord of the space that was leased out to the owner of the bulldog from where it escaped.

The court held the owner of the dog responsible for the act of the dog but spared the land owner from strict liability on the basis that as a landlord Schum could not be held responsible for the negligent conduct of the tenants or for any form of injuries caused to third persons and hwne the injuries did not happen on the leased premises (Justia Law, 2015).

In the case, the court took cognizance of strict tort against the owner of the dog for causing unintentional harm and injury. But the owner of the premises was let off as the owner did not directly have any role to play in the injury and the act as the tenant was responsible to use the leased properly and in a way that no one is hurt. Moreover the incident did had not occurred on the premises and hence the owner did not hold any responsibility.

According to the verdict it is very clear that this is case of strict liability as the harm was caused by the dog and not the owner of the dog or the land owner (Justia Law, 2015).

Strict liability is imposed in some cases to insure the public from actions that can cause harm, even though unintentional, to the general public. Product liability that is meant for use by the general public is an important area of strict tort application to protect the rights of the users for safety. Strict Tort is also applied to prevent the happenings of certain activities which can only be conducted if the person conducting the action is willing to assure otehrs from any harm that can be caused by the activity is a case of public policy where strict tort is used.

UNIT 7: Immunities

Discussion 1

This case is a case of negligence on the part of