Also known as: strict liability · absolute liability · liability without fault
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A tort doctrine under which a defendant is held liable for harm caused by the keeping of wild animals or the carrying on of abnormally dangerous activities even though the defendant exercised the utmost care to prevent the harm. Contributory negligence of the plaintiff does not bar recovery unless the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjected himself to the risk. Assumption of the risk remains a defense to such liability.
Selena Singh remained outdoors repairing equipment on her farm after receiving notice that Sierra Solutions would crop-dust nearby fields with pesticides. Wind shifted the spray onto her property and caused respiratory harm. Because contributory negligence is not a defense to strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity, Sierra Solutions remains liable to Selena Singh for the resulting damages.
Seth Shapiro published an article accusing Stella Shapiro, a private citizen, of professional misconduct on a matter of public concern. The article contained false statements made without negligence. Stella Shapiro cannot recover presumed or punitive damages without proof of actual malice because the First Amendment forbids strict liability in defamation actions brought by private plaintiffs on matters of public concern.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Samantha Stone operated a food processing plant that sold products containing a banned preservative. The statute imposed liability solely upon the presence of the preservative without any mens rea requirement. Because absolute liability was imposed on a material element of an offense defined outside the Model Penal Code, the offense constitutes only a violation rather than a felony.
Steven Silva approached a bison enclosure on Sterling Dynamics property despite posted warnings and leaned over the fence to photograph a calf. A bison gored him. Because Steven Silva knowingly and unreasonably subjected himself to the risk that the wild animal would cause harm, his contributory negligence constitutes a defense to strict liability.
Sebastian Santos entered a fenced area containing an abnormally dangerous domestic animal after being warned of the risk and voluntarily remained near the animal to observe it. The animal caused him injury. Because Sebastian Santos assumed the risk of harm from the animal, the assumption of risk defense bars recovery under strict liability.
Southland Foods employees continued operating equipment near an abnormally dangerous chemical storage facility after receiving clear warnings to evacuate. An accidental release caused them harm. Because the employees knowingly and unreasonably subjected themselves to the risk of harm from the activity, their contributory negligence provides a defense to strict liability.
Contributory negligence does not bar recovery unless the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjected himself to the risk of harm from the animal or activity. Assumption of the risk remains a separate defense that can bar recovery even when ordinary contributory negligence does not.
Supporting sources
No. The First Amendment forbids states from imposing strict liability in defamation actions brought by private plaintiffs on matters of public concern. Such plaintiffs must prove at least negligence to recover compensatory damages and must prove actual malice to recover presumed or punitive damages.
Supporting sources
When absolute liability is imposed on a material element of an offense defined by a statute other than the Model Penal Code, the offense constitutes only a violation. The prosecution may still charge and prove culpable commission, in which event negligence suffices for conviction at the grade determined by the Code.
Supporting sources
…legitimate interest in providing a remedy for defamation of a private individual. We hold that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, the States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual. This approach provides…