👀
Torts • Strict Liability
TORT#070
Legal Definition
Two valid defenses to strict liability are: (1) assumption of risk, and (2) comparative negligence. Note that contributory negligence is not generally a valid defense.
Plain English Explanation
Strict liability is the idea that people can be held to a very strict level of liability, despite not actually being at fault for harm that is caused by their actions. No amount of reasonable care will relieve a defendant of strict liability. However, where the plaintiff's actions played a role in their harm, the law will take it into account.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Sam owns a coal mine that routinely uses explosives. Bob, out of curiosity, walks up to Sam's fence and observes their operations. Sam's team blasts a large chunk of rock, causing rocks to fly over the fence and hit Bob in the face. Result: Sam is strictly liable for Bob's harm.
Hypo 2: Sam owns a coal mine that routinely uses explosives. Bob, out of curiosity, walks up to Sam's fence, next to a sign that says, "WARNING: STANDING NEXT TO FENCE MAY RESULT IN BEING HIT BY DEBRIS!" Sam's team blasts a large chunk of rock, causing rocks to fly over the fence and hit Bob in the face. Result: Sam may have a defense and will argue that Bob assumed the risk of being hit in the face with rock because he was put on notice by the warning sign to not stand next to the fence.
Hypo 3: Sam operates a radioactive waste disposal company, which loads radioactive waste into secured trailers and transports them via train to disposal sites. One day, Sam's train was coming up to a road crossing where Bob was stopped waiting for the train to pass. Bob got tired of waiting and chose to ignore the warning lights, drive around the safety gate, and attempted to cross the train tracks before Sam's train arrived. Bob's car is struck, causing the train to derail, covering Bob in radioactive waste. Unlike in the movies, Bob gained no super powers. Instead, he was badly burned and suffered severe radiation poisoning. Result: Though Sam would generally be held strictly liable, he has a valid defense of comparative negligence and would argue that his liability should be offset (or completely barred) by Bob's negligence in causing the incident.
Hypo 2: Sam owns a coal mine that routinely uses explosives. Bob, out of curiosity, walks up to Sam's fence, next to a sign that says, "WARNING: STANDING NEXT TO FENCE MAY RESULT IN BEING HIT BY DEBRIS!" Sam's team blasts a large chunk of rock, causing rocks to fly over the fence and hit Bob in the face. Result: Sam may have a defense and will argue that Bob assumed the risk of being hit in the face with rock because he was put on notice by the warning sign to not stand next to the fence.
Hypo 3: Sam operates a radioactive waste disposal company, which loads radioactive waste into secured trailers and transports them via train to disposal sites. One day, Sam's train was coming up to a road crossing where Bob was stopped waiting for the train to pass. Bob got tired of waiting and chose to ignore the warning lights, drive around the safety gate, and attempted to cross the train tracks before Sam's train arrived. Bob's car is struck, causing the train to derail, covering Bob in radioactive waste. Unlike in the movies, Bob gained no super powers. Instead, he was badly burned and suffered severe radiation poisoning. Result: Though Sam would generally be held strictly liable, he has a valid defense of comparative negligence and would argue that his liability should be offset (or completely barred) by Bob's negligence in causing the incident.
Related Concepts
What elements are required for a strict liability case?
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?
