Our legal system typically imposes liability for money damages only upon a showing that a person was negligent (i.e., failed to use due care) or somehow intended to bring about an injury or damage to another. There are cases, however, where an actor can be held responsible for an injury even where no negligence or evil intent can be shown. Enter the doctrine of strict liability.
The doctrine of strict liability imposes legal responsibility for injuries sustained by or as a result of an actor’s conduct, whether or not the actor used reasonable care and regardless of the actor’s state of mind. Strict liability cases are limited to certain narrowly-defined areas of the law, including the following:
- products liability
- ultrahazardous activities
- care of animals
- certain statutory offenses
Products liability suits are probably the most familiar strict liability cases. These include claims for injuries resulting from the defective design or manufacture of consumer products. A plaintiff need not show that the manufacturer was negligent in designing or manufacturing the product; a successful plaintiff need only show that the product was in fact defective in design or manufacture, rendering it unreasonably dangerous and the cause of injury.
Strict liability is also imposed upon persons engaged in ultrahazardous activities, such as blasting, oil drilling and other dangerous but beneficial enterprises. If the quarry next door causes damage to your building due to blasting, you need not show they were careless to prevail in a lawsuit.
In most states, owners of domestic animals are typically held strictly liable for any injury or damage caused by such animals. This is especially true in the case of farm animals, which, when they get loose, are capable of causing significant damage to neighboring properties and persons.
Another category of strict liability includes certain statutory offenses for which state of mind and exercise of due care are irrelevant. Something as simple as a speeding violation in your car is a strict liability offense. The Commonwealth need only show that you were going faster than the speed limit; your reasons for doing so and whether you were doing so carefully are not relevant.
The philosophy behind imposition of strict liability is utilitarian: Society has made a determination that it is better to hold persons responsible for certain actions even without a showing of negligence because the benefits derived (such as safety, improved products, accountability, etc.) outweigh the burden placed upon the defendant in a strict liability lawsuit. Especially in the area of consumer product development, strict liability laws have fostered meaningful safety developments which have prevented countless deaths and injuries. Strict liability is not without its cost, however, and the price of consumer goods surely reflects this cost-shifting mechanism.
Strict liability is also imposed upon persons engaged in ultrahazardous activities, such as blasting, oil drilling and other dangerous but beneficial enterprises. If the quarry next door causes damage to your building due to blasting, you need not show they were careless to prevail in a lawsuit.
In most states, owners of domestic animals are typically held strictly liable for any injury or damage caused by such animals. This is especially true in the case of farm animals, which, when they get loose, are capable of causing significant damage to neighboring properties and persons.
Another category of strict liability includes certain statutory offenses for which state of mind and exercise of due care are irrelevant. Something as simple as a speeding violation in your car is a strict liability offense. The Commonwealth need only show that you were going faster than the speed limit; your reasons for doing so and whether you were doing so carefully are not relevant.
The philosophy behind imposition of strict liability is utilitarian: Society has made a determination that it is better to hold persons responsible for certain actions even without a showing of negligence because the benefits derived (such as safety, improved products, accountability, etc.) outweigh the burden placed upon the defendant in a strict liability lawsuit. Especially in the area of consumer product development, strict liability laws have fostered meaningful safety developments which have prevented countless deaths and injuries. Strict liability is not without its cost, however, and the price of consumer goods surely reflects this cost-shifting mechanism.
– Curt Ward