Strict Liability | Sweeney Law Firm (2024)

FAQs

What must be proven to win a strict liability case? ›

To win a strict liability case, first, you must be injured. Second, you must prove that the defendant's product or actions caused the injury. As long as their conduct resulted in your injuries and the case falls under strict liability rules, you can make a claim for your damages without having to demonstrate fault.

Defenses to Strict Liability

Common defenses to claims of strict liability are assumption of risk, statute of limitations, statute of repose, and federal preemption.

In both tort and criminal law, strict liability exists when a defendant is liable for committing an action, regardless of what his/her intent or mental state was when committing the action.

In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortious intent). The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible. The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous.

Most civil lawsuits for injuries allege the wrongdoer was negligent. To win in a negligence lawsuit, the victim must establish 4 elements: (1) the wrongdoer owed a duty to the victim, (2) the wrongdoer breached the duty, (3) the breach caused the injury (4) the victim suffered damages.

However, with strict liability, some defenses may be available to you, such as contributory negligence or assumption of risk. Moreover, under absolute liability, there is no need for you to prove why you're at fault. Although with strict liability, the fault must be proven for you to be liable.

The Restatement says recovery under strict liability is limited to “physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property,” but not other losses and not economic losses.

General defences are a set of defences or 'excuses' that you can undertake to escape liability in tort. But, in order to escape liability, the plaintiff brings an action against the defendant for a particular tort, providing the existence of all the essential of that tort the defendant would be liable for the same.

Under the strict liability rule, the law makes people pay compensation for damages even if they are not at fault. In other words, people have to pay compensation to victims even if they took all the necessary precautions. In fact, permissions allowing such activities often include this principle as a pre-condition.

What are the criteria for strict liability? ›

In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea (Latin for “guilty mind”) does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (Latin for “guilty act”) although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offence.

Strict liability offenses may not be unconstitutional per se, but incarceration for committing such a crime should be.

In strict liability claims, however, neither negligence nor intent must be proved. The plaintiff only must show that strict liability rules apply and that they were harmed by the defendant.

Defenses to strict liability

Therefore, the two most common defenses to a strict liability claim are that the defendant didn't engage in the abnormally dangerous activity or didn't have control over the animal or product, and that something else (such as a third party) caused the plaintiff's injury.

The defining features of strict liability are the absence of any requirement of fault, whether for all or some of the physical elements of an offence, coupled with the provision of the defence of reasonable mistake of fact.

Proving Strict Liability

To hold a party responsible for a defective product under the legal theory of strict liability involves being able to prove the following: The product is unreasonably dangerous. The product's defect directly caused your injury.

Strict liability does not require proof that the defendant negligently caused the plaintiff's injuries. Rather, a party is held strictly liable for a plaintiff's injuries by engaging in certain types of dangerous conduct.

The most common strict liability cases are a result of injuries caused by dangerous/defective products, dangerous pets, and ultra-hazardous activities. Dangerous and defective product claims result from the defective design or manufacture of consumer products.

The crime must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." In order for a plaintiff to win a civil case, it is typically only necessary to prove the case by a "preponderance of the evidence." Sometimes in a civil case, a defendant will make a claim or claims, called a counter-claim against the original plaintiff, which like ...