Strict Liability under Advanced Torts
Strict Liability under Advanced Torts
1. Introduction
In tort law, strict liability refers to situations where a defendant is liable for harm caused by their actions or property regardless of intent or negligence. It is a no-fault liability—the focus is not on whether the defendant acted reasonably or carelessly, but simply on whether the harm occurred as a result of certain inherently dangerous activities or conditions.
Strict liability is primarily applied in the following areas:
Abnormally dangerous (ultrahazardous) activities
Wild animals and some domestic animals
Defective products (product liability)
2. Rationale for Strict Liability
The law imposes strict liability in certain contexts to:
Encourage extreme caution in engaging in dangerous activities.
Allocate the cost of harm to the party best positioned to prevent it or absorb the loss.
Protect the public from non-reciprocal risks (i.e., where the injured party didn’t consent to or benefit from the risk).
3. Categories of Strict Liability
A. Abnormally Dangerous Activities
Definition:
Activities that carry a high risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised and are not common in the community.
Key Factors:
Courts typically consider:
High degree of risk of harm.
Likelihood that harm will be great.
Inability to eliminate risk with reasonable care.
Activity is not common usage.
Inappropriateness of the activity to the place.
Value to the community vs. danger posed.
Case: Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) (UK case, foundational in U.S. torts)
Facts: A reservoir built by the defendant flooded the plaintiff’s coal mine.
Ruling: The defendant was held strictly liable for harm caused by the escape of water, even without negligence.
Significance: Recognized the principle that one who brings and keeps something likely to do mischief on their land is liable if it escapes.
Case: Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.
Facts: A chemical spill occurred during transport. Plaintiff sued under strict liability for transporting hazardous materials.
Ruling: The court declined to impose strict liability, stating the activity was not abnormal in an industrial setting and could be governed by negligence standards.
Significance: Not all dangerous activities automatically qualify—context matters.
B. Liability for Animals
1. Wild Animals:
Owners are strictly liable for injuries caused by wild animals kept in captivity.
Liability applies even if the owner took all possible precautions.
Case: Besozzi v. Harris
Facts: Plaintiff was injured by a caged wild animal kept by the defendant.
Ruling: Court imposed strict liability due to the inherently dangerous nature of wild animals.
2. Domestic Animals:
Generally, no strict liability unless the owner knew or should have known of the animal’s dangerous tendencies (often called the “one-bite rule”).
Case: Gehrts v. Batteen
Facts: A restrained dog bit a visitor without prior incidents.
Ruling: No strict liability imposed because the dog had no known vicious tendencies.
Significance: Reinforced the requirement of knowledge for strict liability with domestic animals.
C. Product Liability (Strict Products Liability)
Definition:
A manufacturer, distributor, or seller can be held strictly liable for injuries caused by a defective product, regardless of fault.
Requirements:
Plaintiff must prove:
The product was defective (design, manufacturing, or warning).
The defect existed when the product left the defendant’s control.
The defect caused the plaintiff’s injury.
The product was used in a foreseeable way.
Case: Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.
Facts: Plaintiff was injured using a power tool sold by the defendant. The tool had a defect.
Ruling: The California Supreme Court held the manufacturer strictly liable.
Significance: Landmark case establishing modern strict products liability in tort law.
Case: Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. (concurring opinion by Justice Traynor)
Facts: Bottle exploded in waitress’s hand.
Ruling: Though decided on negligence, the concurring opinion argued for strict liability to better protect consumers.
Significance: Influenced future adoption of strict liability in product cases.
4. Defenses to Strict Liability
Even though strict liability does not require fault, some defenses may limit or eliminate liability:
A. Assumption of Risk:
If the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk, strict liability may not apply.
B. Product Misuse:
In product liability, if the product was used in a way that was not foreseeable, liability may be avoided.
C. Comparative Fault:
In some jurisdictions, a plaintiff's contributory or comparative fault may reduce recovery, even in strict liability cases.
5. Policy Considerations
Strict liability represents a shift in tort law from moral blame to risk allocation and public protection. It aims to:
Encourage loss spreading (especially in product cases where the manufacturer can include liability costs in the product price).
Incentivize safer practices.
Avoid burdensome proof of negligence in inherently risky contexts.
6. Summary Table
| Category | Strict Liability Applies When... | Key Case |
|---|---|---|
| Abnormally Dangerous Activities | The activity is inherently risky and uncommon in the area | Rylands v. Fletcher |
| Wild Animals | The animal is inherently dangerous, regardless of precautions taken | Besozzi v. Harris |
| Domestic Animals | The owner knows of dangerous tendencies | Gehrts v. Batteen |
| Defective Products | Product is defective and causes injury, even without negligence | Greenman v. Yuba |
Conclusion
Strict liability in advanced torts represents an important legal mechanism that holds individuals or entities accountable for harm even when they acted with care. It is narrowly applied to activities or conditions that are considered inherently dangerous or beyond ordinary risk, ensuring that those who create or profit from such risks also bear the consequences.
RELATED Blog
0 comments