Also known as: strictly criminally liable · strict liability · absolute liability
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An offense for which the prosecution need not prove a culpable mental state with respect to one or more material elements.
Sabrina Shah kept a large dog on her property that bit a neighbor who entered despite posted warnings. The neighbor had ignored the signs and approached the animal. Under the governing rule the neighbor's decision to approach does not bar recovery against the possessor even though the conduct contributed to the injury.
Seth Shapiro a widely known activist published statements about a private citizen on a matter of public concern. The citizen sued for defamation without proving any fault by Shapiro. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff could not meet the required showing of at least negligence.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Sarah Sullivan operated a processing plant whose finished goods contained a banned preservative. The statute imposed liability solely on the presence of the substance with no mens rea element. Because the conviction rested only on absolute liability the offense was reclassified as a violation rather than a felony.
Stella Shapiro entered a fenced enclosure marked with warnings and was injured by a bison kept there for a roadside attraction. The possessor had taken extensive steps to confine the animal. The court held that Stella's knowing and unreasonable exposure defeated the strict liability claim.
Sasha Stone climbed into a tiger enclosure at a sanctuary after reading multiple warning signs and was mauled. The possessor had used reasonable care to secure the area. The court ruled that Sasha's assumption of the risk barred recovery on a strict liability theory.
Sylvia Santos remained near an excavation site after receiving clear warnings that blasting would occur. Flying debris from the abnormally dangerous activity injured her. The court held that her knowing and unreasonable exposure defeated the strict liability claim against the operator.
No. The prosecution need not prove a culpable mental state for any material element when the statute imposes absolute liability.
The offense is reduced to a violation rather than retaining felony or misdemeanor status.
No. Strict criminal liability statutes do not require proof of mens rea regardless of any contributory conduct by others.
No. Strict criminal liability is not available. At least negligence must be shown.
No. Assumption of risk is irrelevant because the offense requires no mental state element to be proved.
…the accused had knowledge that his product did not measure up to the statutory specifications. [^maj-13]: The development of strict criminal liability regardless of intent has been roughly paralleled by an evolution of a strict civil liability for consequences regardless of fault in certain relationships, as shown by Workmen’s…