Question

automatic responsibility (without having to prove negligence) for damages due to possession and/or use of equipment, materials or possessions which are inherently dangerous, such as explosives, wild animals, poisonous snakes or assault weapons. This is analogous to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in which control, ownership and damages are sufficient to hold the owner liable.

Answer 1

The student's question pertains to strict liability, a legal principle where responsibility for damage can be assigned without proving fault, especially in cases of inherently dangerous activities and relates to property rights and externalities as per the Coase Theorem.

Step-by-step explanation:

The student's question deals with the concept of strict liability, which is a legal doctrine where a party can be held responsible for damages or injuries without the need to prove negligence or fault. It typically applies to inherently dangerous activities or the use of hazardous materials. One key example provided is the case of a manufacturer knowingly selling cars with defective brakes, which subsequently leads to accidents.

This concept also relates to the Coase Theorem, which addresses the issue of externalities and property rights. In determining liability, it is essential to have well-defined property rights so that the responsible party will bear the cost of minimizing the risks associated with their actions.

Finally, the student's question refers to res ipsa loquitur, a legal theory that allows an inference of negligence when the nature of the accident is such that it would not normally occur without negligence and where other explanations for the cause of the harm are sufficiently eliminated.