ABSTRACT
Some products create such grave risks when accidentally released from the control of the manufacturer, transporter, or user, that the responsible party may be liable even where they exercised scrupulous care. This doctrine was once described as "liability for ultrahazardous activities", although the modem definition uses the term "abnormally dangerous". Claimants proceeding against product manufacturers for claims arising from the manufacture and marketing of products claimed to be abnormally dangerous have been denied recovery under this doctrine for want of demonstrating the "activity" requirement of plaintiff's prima facie case. Various courts have evaluated plaintiff's claims under the doctrine of abnormally dangerous activities, with results either recognizing or denying relief for activites ranging from the transportation to the inadvertant emission of toxins. Defendant in an abnormally dangerous activities claim may avoid liability by showing that the harm was caused by the nonforeseeable intervening act of a third party.
