Remembering the hypothetical scenario presented at the beginning of the chapter, what arguments would you make if you wanted to allege that those who dispose of hazardous wastes, such as toxic chemicals, are strictly liable for the consequences of their dumping? Analogize to the cases in this chapter, arguing that your case is most like those cases used to illustrate abnormally dangerous activities and unlike those cases used to illustrate activities that are not abnormally dangerous.

The scenario presented in the beginning of the chapter is as follows:

In this high-tech era of powerful but potentially dangerous sources of energy, we are now faced with the problem of waste disposal. We are just beginning to awaken to the horrendous potential posed by hazardous chemicals and are taking our first faltering steps toward safeguarding future generations. But some in our society have already begun to experience the repercussions of our ignorance. Suppose a woman comes to your supervising attorney and claims she has contracted cancer as a result of the leakage of toxic chemicals into her home. She wants to sue the city for approving the construction of the housing development in which she lives. She tells you that 15 years before the land was developed into a residential area, it was used as a disposal site for chemical wastes. Is the city liable for the residents' injuries, even if those who allowed the dumping of wastes were, at the time, completely unaware of the potential medical dangers posed by such wastes?