When someone suffers an injury, proving fault typically requires demonstrating negligence or intent. However, strict liability represents a powerful exception to this rule. Strict liability laws hold defendants responsible for harm regardless of their intentions or level of care.
This legal doctrine recognizes that certain activities and products pose such significant risks that those who profit from them should bear responsibility whenever injuries occur. For victims navigating personal injury cases, this principle offers a clearer path to justice.
In this article, we will talk about strict liability, how the doctrine developed in the courts, and how it applies in cases today.
The Concept of Strict Liability in Tort Law
The concept of strict liability fundamentally differs from traditional negligence claims. Under tort law, most cases require plaintiffs to prove that the defendant breached a duty of care. Strict liability eliminates this burden and focuses entirely on the activity being performed and the damages suffered.
Courts recognize that some activities carry inherent dangers that no amount of care can eliminate. When businesses or individuals choose to engage in these activities, they essentially accept full responsibility for any resulting harm. This principle ensures that innocent victims don't bear the cost of damages resulting from unusually or extraordinarily risky activities.
The legal system applies this doctrine selectively, reserving it for situations where public policy demands absolute accountability. Typically, whether strict liability will apply to a given activity will depend upon whether that activity is "inherently dangerous," "abnormally dangerous," or "ultrahazardous." In other words, the activity itself is so dangerous or risky that the person or entity engaged in that activity should be per se liable for any harm that results from the activity.
The Historical Development of Strict Liability Laws
Strict liability principles trace back centuries to English common law. Early cases involved keeping dangerous animals and engaging in ultra-hazardous activities. American courts adopted and expanded these concepts throughout the industrial revolution.
The landmark case of Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) established that those who engage in unusually risky activities on their property may be held strictly liable for any resulting damages.
In Rylands v. Fletcher, the defendants owned a mill in Lancashire. They had a reservoir on the property constructed to feed water to the mill. One day, the water in the reservoir broke through to a neighboring coal mine shaft and flooded the mine.
Notably, the mill owners were not aware of the neighboring coal mine. In fact, the water initially broke through an abandoned part of the mine, and then it flooded into the active parts of the mine.
The case went up on appeal, and eventually the court found the defendants liable for the damage caused by the water intrusion. The court focused on the artificial and unnatural use of the land, namely storing water for use in a mill. Ultimately, this unusual or extraordinary use of the land brought with it a unique responsibility.
Rylands illustrates a situation where the courts saw the need to develop a theory (strict liability) for certain activities that could result in harm without any breach of the standard of care. The Rylands court had to decide who should bear the consequences of the mill owners' unusual use of the land. The activity itself carried with it such unusual risks that the court did not find a need to analyze whether the defendants acted negligently, only that harm occurred as a result of the activity.
This precedent shaped modern American strict liability laws and their application to industrial activities. Today's legal framework reflects society's evolving understanding of risk and responsibility. Courts continually refine when activities involve strict liability based on technological advances and changing social values.
Examples of Activities Where Strict Liability May be Imposed
As discussed in this article, strict liability is generally only imposed where harm occurs as a result of an inherently dangerous or abnormally dangerous activity. Below are some of the more specific categories of activities where courts tend to impose strict liability.
Defective Products and Product Liability Claims
Product liability claims represent a common application of strict liability in modern litigation. Manufacturers, distributors, and retailers can be held strictly liable when defective products cause injuries. This includes design defects, manufacturing flaws, and inadequate warnings.
Victims don't need to prove negligence in the production process. The mere existence of a defect that causes harm can trigger liability. The goal of imposing such responsibility is to ensure companies prioritize consumer safety over profits.
Strict liability claims for products extend throughout the supply chain. Every entity involved in bringing the product to market could share in potential joint and several liability for resulting injuries.
Animal Attacks and Wild Animals
Animal attacks frequently trigger strict liability, particularly involving wild animals or known dangerous domestic animals. Owners of exotic pets or livestock with dangerous propensities face automatic liability for injuries their animals cause.
Wild animals kept in captivity typically invoke strict liability regardless of precautions taken. The law recognizes that these creatures retain unpredictable instincts that pose unavoidable risks to others.
Even domestic animals can trigger this doctrine if the owner knew of previous aggressive behavior. This knowledge can create absolute responsibility for any future attacks by the same animal.
For example, a person who owns a wild bobcat and keeps it as a pet will likely be strictly liable if it attacks someone because a bobcat is a wild and unpredictable creature. However, someone who owns a horse would not likely be strictly liable if the horse bit someone, unless the owner knew the horse had a tendency to bite people.
Inherently Dangerous Activities
An inherently dangerous activity automatically invokes strict liability when it causes harm. Examples of an "inherently dangerous activity" include things like:
- Construction and demolition using explosives;
- Maintaining hazardous substances that could escape;
- Construction activities creating excessive vibrations;
- Aerial pesticide application near populated areas;
- Storage or transportation of nuclear substances;
- Storage or transportation of flammable liquids;
- Accumulation or storage of sewage; or
- Fumigation from pest control activities.
The type of activity is important when studying strict liability. However, it's important to note that where the activity occurs can also be a major factor in determining whether strict liability will be applied.
For example, strict liability may not be imposed in the context of an activity carried out in a rural area. However, strict liability may be imposed for the very same activity carried out in a crowded city. Accordingly, the type of activity and the location of the activity factor into the analysis of whether the activity is "inherently dangerous."
Key Factors Courts Consider in Strict Liability Cases
Courts apply specific criteria when determining whether to impose strict liability on a defendant's activity. The factors courts have used in the past to determine whether to apply strict liability are derived from the Restatement (Second) of Torts. These factors include the following:
- Degree of risk: Whether the activity involves substantial risk of harm to people or property.
- Gravity of potential harm: The severity of injuries that could result from the activity.
- Inability to eliminate risk: Whether reasonable care cannot prevent the danger.
- Common usage: Whether the activity is part of ordinary life or exceptional.
- Location appropriateness: Whether the activity suits its surroundings.
- Community value: The activity's benefit to society versus its risks.
Courts use these factors to balance the competing interests of public safety with economic activity. Each factor weighs differently depending on the specific circumstances and jurisdiction.
Defenses Against Strict Liability Claims
While strict liability eliminates the negligence requirement, defendants retain certain defenses.
Scienter
Although the doctrine of strict liability seemingly skips the analysis of the defendant's state of mind when examining liability, there is still one consideration worth noting. Namely, the defendant must have knowingly engaged in the activity or authorized someone to engage in the activity. Courts are reluctant to apply strict liability unless the defendant consciously acted.
The reasoning here is that a defendant must consciously assume a risk to be held liable for the resulting damage. Essentially, this is a defense based on fairness.
Legal Causation & Foreseeability
Legal cause or proximate cause is more broad in typical negligence cases than in strict liability cases. In the context of an inherently dangerous activity, the questions are (1) whether the damage occurred for the same reasons that made the activity inherently dangerous in the first place and (2) whether the victim was in the foreseeable "zone of danger." Put another way, the harmful result must be from the kind of risk that made the activity ultrahazardous, and it must be foreseeable that the harm could occur where it occurred.
An example of a case where the harm suffered was not a foreseeable risk is Madsen v. East Jordan Irrigation Co., 125 P.2d 794 (Utah 1942). In that case, blasting activities caused mother minks at a nearby mink farm to kill their young. The owner of the mink farm brought a lawsuit to recover for the loss (baby minks).
The court in Madsen determined that the actions of the mother minks were not foreseeable. That is, mother minks killing their young in response to blasting is not the kind of foreseeable damage that would result from such an activity. This result was "not within the realm of matters to be anticipated," and thus the defendant could not be held liable for it.
The foreseeability defense does not just apply to abnormally dangerous or inherently dangerous activities. It may also be applied in the context of strict products liability. The analysis focuses on whether the injuries resulting from the abnormal or unintended use of a product were foreseeable.
This means that a defendant manufacturer may be held liable for abnormal or unintended use of a product if such use was foreseeable. However, liability may not be proper where a person suffers injury due to an unforeseeable abnormal or unintended use of the product.
Assumption of the Risk
Assumption of risk provides the strongest protection when plaintiffs voluntarily encountered known dangers.
Courts examine whether victims understood and accepted the specific risks involved. This defense requires clear evidence that plaintiffs made informed choices to face danger. Mere awareness isn't typically enough; voluntary acceptance is essential.
Comparative fault may reduce damages in some jurisdictions, though it rarely eliminates liability entirely. Courts weigh the plaintiff's actions against the defendant's absolute responsibility for engaging in dangerous activities.
Strict Liability in the Criminal Context
Statutory rape represents a unique criminal application of strict liability principles. This crime requires no proof of intent or knowledge regarding the victim's age. The act itself, regardless of circumstances, triggers criminal responsibility.
Just like in the civil context, criminal laws often have policy justifications behind them. For example, strict liability for statutory rape reflects society's determination to protect minors from sexual exploitation. Whether the defendant is mistaken about the age of the victim is no defense. The act itself is a violation.
Thus, the criminal justice system's use of strict liability for statutory rape parallels civil law's approach to ultra-hazardous or inherently dangerous activities. Both recognize situations where public policy demands absolute accountability, regardless of knowledge, fault, or blame.
Damages Available in Strict Liability Cases
Victims in strict liability cases can recover compensation for their losses, just as they may in an ordinary negligence case. Compensatory damages come in the form of economic and non-economic damages.
Economic damages include medical expenses, lost wages, and property damage. These tangible losses form the foundation of most claims.
Pain and suffering compensation addresses the physical and emotional toll of injuries. Courts recognize that financial recovery alone cannot restore victims to their pre-injury state. Non-economic damages acknowledge the human cost of preventable harm.
How Strict Liability Claims Benefit Injured Victims
Strict liability claims level the playing field between individuals and powerful defendants. Victims avoid the burden of proving complex technical failures or investigating internal corporate processes. This streamlined approach theoretically reduces litigation costs and accelerates resolution.
The doctrine encourages safer practices across industries. Knowing they face automatic liability for harm, companies invest more in safety measures and quality control. This preventive effect benefits society beyond individual cases.
Injured parties gain leverage in settlement negotiations when strict liability applies. Defendants cannot hide behind claims of reasonable care or shift blame to victims. This can lead to faster and fairer resolutions.
Conclusion
Strict liability is a doctrine in the law that demonstrates how courts develop legal principles to serve important public policy goals. As technology advances, the doctrine will inevitably evolve. However, the core principles and policy justifications will likely remain constant, continuing to guide future court decisions.
Thank you for reading this article. If you have any questions about a potential claim, we handle a wide variety of personal injury and wrongful death cases. You can call us anytime at 321-LAWSUIT for a free legal consultation.