Strict Liability: It is Possible to be Held Liable for a Tort without Negligence?

As we discovered, the general rule under tort law is negligence liability, in which the defendant will be held liable for one’s actions if a jury determines that the level of care used by the defendant under the case’s circumstances was unreasonable.

Sometimes, in exceptional cases and always based on public policy reasons, the law applies a higher standard of liability. This means that the level of care used by the actor in the incident that resulted in damages is inapplicable. This rule focuses on the level of risk that the activity itself creates for others.

When the law applies a standard that any wrong outcome will result in liability for the actor, regardless of one’s care level, one is faced with a strict liability rule.

In all these cases, the law permits a plaintiff to recover damages from a defendant without proving that the defendant acted unreasonably. One only needs to prove that the defendant was engaged in the activity, and that the damages are a result of the actions of the defendant; or, in other words, that the action of the defendant directly resulted in the wrongdoing.

For example, in many states, if you drive over the permissible speed limit, you are liable under strict liability standards for any damages you cause to others during an accident. This is because one chose to violate the rules established for driving.

There are two main arguments that justify this kind of liability. Some argue that such liability is a kind of corrective justice because the person that creates the dangerous situation is the one that pays for its consequences. The second argument suggests that by imposing strict liability, people will use an appropriate level of care, which develops one’s civic conduct. In most strict liability cases, the actor is the only individual in a position to exercise control over a certain activity. For example, if a company wants to build nuclear reactor facilities to preserve and create energy, it will be liable for any accident concerning the reactor.

One of the traditional cases of strict liability it is a fire, where an individual intentionally starts a fire on one’s own land. Imagine a case where the owner of a lot wants to burn excess brush, and the fire spreads onto neighboring land. The individual will be held liable under a strict liability rule because he or she created the risk, which resulted in wrongdoing and damages.

On a modern approach, strict liability rules are based on the creation of abnormally dangerous activities, which are exceptional activities that most individuals would not engage in. This theory is based on the argument that because the risk is unreasonable, we can recognize it since the risk has the potential to greatly harm others. In addition, there is no alternative for diminishing the harm by exercising greater care, etc.

Reference: Legal > Exculpatory Agreements: How to Avoid Some Causes of Liability

Comments are closed.