Strict liability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tort law II

Part of the common law series
Negligent torts
Negligence · Negligent hiring
Negligent entrustment · Malpractice
Negligent infliction of emotional distress
Doctrines affecting liability
Duty of care · Standard of care
Proximate cause · Res ipsa loquitur
Calculus of negligence · Eggshell skull
Vicarious liability · Attractive nuisance
Rescue doctrine · Duty to rescue
Comparative responsibility
Duties owed to visitors to property
Trespassers · Licensees · Invitees
Defenses to negligence
Contributory negligence
Last clear chance
Comparative negligence
Assumption of risk · Intervening cause
Strict liability
Ultrahazardous activity
Product liability
Nuisance
Other areas of the common law
Contract law · Property law
Wills and trusts
Criminal law · Evidence

Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes a person responsible for the damage and loss caused by their acts and omissions regardless of culpability (or fault in criminal law terms, which would normally be expressed through a mens rea requirement; see Strict liability (criminal)). Strict liability is important in torts (especially product liability), corporations law, and criminal law. For analysis of the pros and cons of strict liability as applied to product liability, the most important strict liability regime, see product liability.

[edit] Tort law

The plaintiff needs only to prove that the tort happened and that the defendant was responsible. Neither good faith nor the fact that the defendant took all possible precautions are valid defenses. Strict liability often applies to those engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous ventures.

Strict liability is sometimes called absolute liability to distinguish those situations where, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defense of absence of fault.

A classic example of strict liability is the owner of a tiger rehabilitation center; no matter how strong the tiger cages are, if an animal escapes and causes damage and injury, the owner is held liable. Another example is a contractor hiring a demolition subcontractor that lacks proper insurance. If the subcontractor makes a mistake, the contractor is strictly liable for any damage that occurs.

The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous. It discourages reckless behavior and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. It also has the effect of simplifying litigation and allowing the victim to become whole more quickly.

It should be noted also that the motivation for this principle is partly financial: most defendants against whom this priciple is brought are large corporations who are in a better position to recoup the loss financially than other parties involved. For instance: if a design flaw is found in a vehicle that causes an accident, the auto manufacturer has more funds available to compensate the victims of the crash than does the driver of the vehicle, despite that s/he may also have been negligent in some way. It is expected that the cost of this responsibility to strict liability is incorporated into the organization's cost of doing business and therefore comes to rest on the entire customer base of that organization instead of just the driver of the car, who may not be able to compensate. Similar to the way insurance works, the principle of strict liability acts to distribute the impact of disastrous occurrences.

The doctrine's most famous advocates were Learned Hand, Benjamin Cardozo, and Roger J. Traynor.

In English and Welsh law, where tortious liability is strict, the defendant will often only be liable for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his or her act or omission (as in nuisance).

[edit] Criminal Law

The concept of strict liability is also found in criminal law, though to a lesser extent. Strict liability often applies to vehicular traffic offenses. In a speeding case, for example, whether the defendant knew he or she was exceeding the posted speed limit is irrelevant. The prosecutor would need only prove that the defendant was indeed operating the vehicle in excess of the speed limit.

Strict liability laws can also prevent defendants from raising diminished mental capacity defenses - since intent does not need to be proven.[1]