Strict liability (2024)

FAQs

How do you 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.

Overview. 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 criminal law, possession crimes and statutory rape are both examples of strict liability offenses.

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.

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.

Examples include DUI, parking in a handicapped spot, and statutory rape. Defenses like mistaken identity or proving the crime didn't occur can be effective. California law includes a category of charges known as strict liability crimes.

Note, for now that causation is always required: if a plaintiff cannot show that the defendant's actions—measured by whatever culpability level—caused their injury, the plaintiff will fail.

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.

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.

Which is easier to prove negligence or strict liability? ›

Succeeding with a strict liability theory requires less proof than when the plaintiff uses negligence as their legal theory. The plaintiff must prove that the at-fault party should have reasonably anticipated that their product could have hurt a person in the customer's position.

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.

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.

In the state of California, strict liability claims often apply to defective product incidents. Products can become defective in a number of ways, including design defects, manufacturing flaws, or issues with advertising or product labeling.

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.

Affirmative defenses to strict liability break down into two categories: those based on the product, and those based on the plaintiff's behavior. The defenses that focus on the product are modification and misuse.

Strict liability is a doctrine that holds a person liable for any injuries or damages caused by their products or actions, even if they had no intent to harm and were not at fault. An injured party does not have to prove negligence or fault in order to receive damages under strict liability.