“Certain activities are considered so inherently or abnormally dangerous that their attendant risks cannot normally be eliminated through the exercise of due care. The doctrine of “ultrahazardous activity” (or “abnormally dangerous activity”) imposes strict liability for damage or injury proximately caused by one who carries on such an activity. While negligence is often pleaded as an alternative theory, the ultrahazardous activity cause of action does not require proof of a “duty” and “breach”; like strict product liability, liability attaches regardless of the care or precautions taken by the person engaging in the activity. Despite their inherent risks, certain activities must be allowed because they are regarded as beneficial, useful or necessary to society. Although the actor is not deemed negligent simply for engaging in such activity, damage resulting to others is taxed to the actor because he or she is the person who most logically should bear the cost. I.e., as between an innocent victim and one engaging in an ultrahazardous activity for profit, the latter “is in a position best able to administer the loss so that it will ultimately be borne by the public.” Whether an activity is “ultrahazardous” for strict liability purposes is a question of law for the court to decide. Generally, an activity is deemed ultrahazardous if it necessarily involves a risk of serious harm to the person or property of others that cannot be eliminated by exercising utmost care and is not a matter of common usage. In evaluating individual cases without precedent, courts look to six factors set forth in Rest.2d Torts § 520. These several factors are to be considered together; the existence of one alone is usually not dispositive: Existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person or property of others; Likelihood that harm from the activity 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 on; and Extent to which the value of the activity to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes.”
Activities found to be ultrahazardous: After weighing the six pertinent factors, the following have been held “ultrahazardous”: Use of hydrocyanic acid gas in fumigating commercial buildings. [Luthringer v. Moore, supra, 31 C2d at 498, 190 P2d at 7] Test firing of large, solid-fuel rocket motor. [Smith v. Lockheed Propulsion Co., supra, 247 CA2d at 785, 56 CR at 137] Oil well drilling. [Green v. General Petroleum Corp. (1928) 205 C 328, 270 P 952—oil well blew out from natural gas pressure while being drilled] Using explosives in the vicinity of a residential area. [Balding v. D.B. Stutsman, Inc. (1966) 246 CA2d 559, 564, 54 CR 717, 720]
[California Practice Guide: Personal Injury [certain citations omitted]]
