Courts generally insist that two criteria be met before imposing strict liability rather than basing liability on the negligence rule. The first--that the injurer’s activity must be dangerous--is sensible because strict liability possesses general advantages over the negligence rule in controlling risk. But the second--that the activity must be uncommon--is ill-advised because it exempts all common activities from strict liability no matter how dangerous they are. Thus, the harm generated by the large swath of common dangerous activities--from hunting, to construction, to the transmission of natural gas--is inadequately regulated by tort law. After developing this theme and criticizing ostensible justifications for the uncommon activity requirement, the article addresses the question of how it arose. The answer is that its legal pedigree is problematic: it appears to have been invented by the authors of the first Restatement of Torts. The conclusion is that the uncommon activity requirement for the imposition of strict liability should be eliminated.

中文翻译：

---

严格限制不常见活动的责任

法院通常坚持在施加严格责任之前要满足两个条件，而不是基于过失规则承担责任。第一个-伤害者的活动必须是危险的-是明智的，因为严格责任在控制风险方面比过失规则具有一般优势。但是第二点-该活动一定是不常见的-是不明智的，因为它使所有普通活动免于严格责任，无论它们有多危险。因此，侵权法对从狩猎，建筑到天然气传输的大量常见危险活动所产生的危害进行了适当的限制。在发展了这个主题并批评了罕见的活动要求的表面上的理由之后，本文讨论了它是如何产生的。答案是它的法律血统是有问题的：它似乎是第一份《侵权行为重述》的作者发明的。结论是应消除对严格责任施加不常见的活动要求。