👀
Torts • Strict Liability
TORT#065
Legal Definition
To successfully bring a case for strict liability, the plaintiff must show: (1) the nature of the defendant's activity is abnormally dangerous; (2) the dangerous aspect of the activity was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury; and (3) the plaintiff suffered damage to their person or property.
Plain English Explanation
"Strict Liability" is a type of liability under which a defendant is legally responsible for the consequences of their activity even where there is no fault on the part of the defendant.
In a negligence case, you must prove that a defendant failed to act in a way that they were required or expected to act. The defendant may try to show that, under the circumstances, they did their best. It is then up to the jury or fact finder to decide whether or not they acted appropriately. In contrast, in a strict liability case, it doesn't matter if the defendant "did their best," nor do the circumstances of how they caused the harm matter. Why? Because whatever activity they were doing is so inherently or naturally risky, that the law forces them to have an absolute duty to not cause harm.
A common example of a strict liability activity is an airplane. It doesn't matter how smart and capable an airplane's pilots are, and it doesn't matter that due to no fault of their own a UFO came out from space and knocked into their engine, causing them to fall down onto a community below. The airline is still liable for the damage the crashed airplane caused," because they are strictly liable due to how abnormally dangerous the activity of flying is.
In a negligence case, you must prove that a defendant failed to act in a way that they were required or expected to act. The defendant may try to show that, under the circumstances, they did their best. It is then up to the jury or fact finder to decide whether or not they acted appropriately. In contrast, in a strict liability case, it doesn't matter if the defendant "did their best," nor do the circumstances of how they caused the harm matter. Why? Because whatever activity they were doing is so inherently or naturally risky, that the law forces them to have an absolute duty to not cause harm.
A common example of a strict liability activity is an airplane. It doesn't matter how smart and capable an airplane's pilots are, and it doesn't matter that due to no fault of their own a UFO came out from space and knocked into their engine, causing them to fall down onto a community below. The airline is still liable for the damage the crashed airplane caused," because they are strictly liable due to how abnormally dangerous the activity of flying is.
Related Concepts
What are valid defenses to strict liability?
When assessing strict liability, when is an activity abnormally dangerous?
When is an owner liable for harm caused by their domestic animals?
When is an owner liable for harm caused by their livestock and wild animals?
When is an owner liable for their trespassing animals?
