What Is Strict Liability?

Most tort claims require the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was at fault, meaning intentional or negligent. Strict liability is different. Under strict liability, a defendant can be held responsible for harm even if the defendant exercised the utmost care and did not intend to hurt anyone. The law imposes this heightened responsibility in situations where the activity or product poses an unusual risk and the defendant is best positioned to bear the cost. Strict liability is a favorite topic on paralegal exams because it contrasts neatly with negligence and intentional torts.

The Three Main Categories of Strict Liability

1. Abnormally Dangerous Activities

A person who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is strictly liable for harm that results from the dangerous nature of the activity. Courts generally consider these factors from the Restatement of Torts:

The activity creates a high degree of risk of harm to persons, land, or chattels.
The potential harm is likely to be great.
The risk cannot be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care.
The activity is not a matter of common usage.
The activity is inappropriate to the place where it is carried out.
The value of the activity to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes.

Classic examples include blasting with explosives, storing large quantities of toxic or flammable substances, crop dusting with hazardous chemicals, and keeping wild animals in captivity. The famous English case Rylands v. Fletcher, in which a reservoir burst and flooded a neighbor's mine, is the historical origin of this rule. Liability extends only to the type of harm that makes the activity dangerous. For example, a person who stores explosives is strictly liable for damage from an explosion, but not for a visitor who slips on the floor of the storage building.

2. Animals

The law treats wild animals and domestic animals differently. The keeper of a wild animal, meaning one not customarily domesticated in the community, is strictly liable for harm caused by the animal's dangerous propensities, even if the animal has never hurt anyone and is kept with great care. Owners of domestic animals such as dogs and cats are generally liable only if they knew or had reason to know of the animal's dangerous tendencies. This is the origin of the so called one bite rule. Many states have changed this by statute so that dog owners are strictly liable for bites. Livestock trespass is another traditional area of strict liability, where the owner is responsible for damage caused when livestock stray onto another's land.

3. Strict Products Liability

Strict products liability is the most heavily tested category. A commercial seller who sells a product in a defective condition that is unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer is liable for physical harm caused by the product, even if the seller exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of the product. The key elements are:

The defendant is a commercial seller or distributor in the business of selling the product.
The product was defective when it left the defendant's control.
The defect was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury.
The plaintiff suffered damages, typically personal injury or property damage.

What Are the Types of Product Defects?

Manufacturing defect: the product departs from its intended design, such as a contaminated food item or a bottle with a flaw in the glass.
Design defect: the foreseeable risks of harm could have been reduced or avoided by a reasonable alternative design. Courts use either the consumer expectations test or the risk utility test.
Warning defect (failure to warn): the product lacks adequate instructions or warnings about non obvious risks.

Who Can Be Sued and Who Can Sue?

Any commercial entity in the chain of distribution, including the manufacturer, wholesaler, and retailer, may be sued. Casual sellers, such as a person selling a used lawnmower at a yard sale, are not covered. The plaintiff need not be in privity of contract with the seller. Purchasers, users, and even bystanders who are foreseeably injured can recover in most jurisdictions.

Causation and Strict Liability

Strict liability removes the need to prove fault, but not the need to prove causation. The plaintiff must still show that the activity, animal, or defect caused the harm, both factually and proximately. An unforeseeable intervening cause may break the chain.

Defenses to Strict Liability

Can the Plaintiff's Conduct Reduce Recovery?

Ordinary contributory negligence, meaning failure to discover a defect, is generally not a defense. However, assumption of the risk is a defense, which occurs when the plaintiff knew about the danger and voluntarily proceeded to encounter it. Product misuse that is unforeseeable can also bar or reduce recovery. In many states that follow comparative fault principles, the plaintiff's unreasonable conduct can reduce damages proportionately. A plaintiff who trespasses onto land where an abnormally dangerous activity is occurring may not recover in many jurisdictions.

Other Defenses

The product was altered substantially after leaving the defendant's control.
The statute of limitations or statute of repose has run.
Compliance with government standards, which is often evidence but not always a complete defense.
Lack of causation.

Strict Liability vs Negligence

With negligence the focus is on the defendant's conduct and whether it fell below a standard of reasonable care. With strict liability the focus is on the activity or product itself. Plaintiffs often plead both theories together, along with breach of warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code. Remember that strict liability generally compensates only for physical harm, and pure economic loss may be barred by the economic loss rule.

A Quick Example

A consumer buys a space heater from a retail store. The heater was designed in such a way that it overheats if left on for more than two hours, and a fire results. The consumer sues the manufacturer and the retailer. Because the heater was sold in the course of business and the design defect caused physical injury, both defendants may be strictly liable even if neither was negligent. The consumer does not have to show who was careless.

How Paralegals Support Strict Liability Cases

Products cases are document intensive. A paralegal may preserve the allegedly defective product, track chain of custody, request recalls and prior complaint records, collect medical records, research similar incidents, and coordinate with expert witnesses. Keeping an organized exhibit list is essential, as is calendaring the statute of limitations, which may differ for product claims.

Study Resources

Practice distinguishing strict liability from negligence on fact patterns. Review the key terms with our torts flashcards, create your free account to try sample questions, and explore the pricing options to unlock the entire question bank.

Key Takeaways

Strict liability applies to abnormally dangerous activities, wild animals and known dangerous domestic animals, and defective products sold by commercial sellers. Plaintiffs do not need to prove fault, but they must prove causation and damages. Know the three kinds of product defects and the main defenses.

Strict Liability in Tort Law Explained for Paralegals