Strict liability is defined as, “absolute legal responsibility for an injury that can be imposed on the wrongdoer without proof of carelessness or fault.”[1] Strict liability is imposed in torts (especially products liability), corporate law, and criminal law. Most plaintiffs have the burden of showing that the defendant’s conduct fell below a normal standard, or that of a reasonable person. Strict liability does weigh with the analysis of whether the defendant’s conduct was below any standard.
In Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, a major decision was reached by a California court that would change the face of products liability for the rest of jurisprudential history. The California Supreme Court became the first court to adopt strict tort liability for defective products. There were apparent holes in the previous law that would not allow a plaintiff to recover under certain circumstances, and that is what they were out to stop. According to their holding, plaintiffs now have to prove that the defective product caused harm, but they no longer have to prove what the manufacturer did wrong to result in that defect.[2] Under the new law, purchasers, guests, bystanders and others with no relationship with the product now had standing to sue the manufacturer for resulting harm.[3]
The Plaintiff must still prove that the product was defective, the defect proximately caused his/her injury and that the defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous. Plaintiffs can recover even where the manufacturer may have taken all possible steps of care required and expected, but still resulted in a defective product that caused harm.[4]
Another area of tort law where strict liability is applied is to the area of owners of animals. The law sets forth that “suits for damage caused by vicious animals are governed by principles of strict liability.”[5] Vicious can apply to household animals as well as exotic animals. “A possessor of a domestic animal which he has reason to know has dangerous propensities abnormal to its class, is subject to liability for harm caused thereby to others, except trespassers on his land, although he has exercised the utmost care to prevent it from doing the harm.”[6] This rule is true for wild animals as well but does not require the owner to know of any vicious propensities of the animal.
Strict liability is also applied to abnormally dangerous activities. To determine whether an activity is abnormally dangerous, the court must consider the following factors:[7]
- Existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land, or chattels of others;
- Likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great;
- Inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care;
- Extend to which the activity is not a matter of common usage;
- Inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on; and
- Extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes.
Although these activities are found to be abnormally dangerous as a matter of law, they are not illegal. One must take an extremely high level of care in conducting such activities. And because of this high duty and risk that these actors take in the activity, if injury results from them, whether there was a degree of care taken or not, they should be held strictly liable in the event of an injury or death. Some examples of an abnormally dangerous activity are making and using explosives, storing dangerous chemicals or fuel and other such things that have the potential to cause extensive damage if mishandled. [8]
If you have a claim that involves strict liability or need help determining so, consulting an attorney would be highly recommended.
Written by:
Lyndsey Mott
Approved by Francisco Guerra IV
Watts Guerra LLP
4 Dominion Drive, Bldg 3, Suite 100
San Antonio, Texas 78257
Phone (210) 447-0500
© Watts Guerra LLP 2015
[1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Strict+Liability
[2] Greenman v. Yuba Power Prodcuts, 59 Cal.2d 57, 377 P.2d 897
[3] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Strict+Liability
[4] Id.
[5] Marshall v. Ranne, 511 S.W.2d 255, 258 (Tex. 1974)
[6] Id.
[7] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 (1977)
[8] http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/torts2/StrictLiability/AbnormallyDangerousActivities.asp
