Also known as:strictly liable in tort · strict liability · absolute liability
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A tort doctrine that imposes liability for physical harm caused by a defective product or by an abnormally dangerous activity or animal. The doctrine requires no proof that the defendant acted negligently or with fault. Recovery turns on whether the product reached the user without substantial change or whether the activity or animal created the type of risk that justifies shifting the loss to the defendant.
Sources & Authorities· 9 primary sources
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Model Codes
Common Law
Restatements
Casebooks
Hornbooks
Study Supplements
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Crop Dusting Exposure Despite Warning
Steven Silva hired Bright Ag to aerially apply pesticides on his fields and warned neighboring farmer Stella Shapiro to stay indoors during the flights. Shapiro remained outside repairing equipment on her own land when wind shifted the spray onto her property. Even though Shapiro disregarded the warning, Bright Ag remains subject to strict liability for the resulting harm because contributory negligence does not bar recovery for abnormally dangerous activities.
Defective Toaster Causes House Fire
A homeowner purchased a toaster from a retailer that contained a manufacturing defect making it prone to overheating. The toaster ignited a fire that damaged the kitchen. The retailer is subject to strict liability for the harm even though it neither manufactured the product nor failed to exercise care in its sale.
Exploding Pressure Cooker Sold to Consumer
A buyer acquired a pressure cooker from a store. The unit had a design defect that caused it to explode during ordinary use. The buyer suffered burns. The seller faces strict liability for the injuries although it had no role in designing or assembling the cooker and took all reasonable precautions when stocking it.
Approaching Bison Enclosure Despite Signs
Sophia Singh visited Lucas's farm and leaned over a fence to photograph a bison calf despite posted warnings against contact. A bison gored her. Because Singh knowingly and unreasonably subjected herself to the risk that the wild animal would cause harm, her contributory negligence barred recovery under strict liability for possession of the animal.
Entering Dog Run to Retrieve Lost Item
Sebastian Santos entered his neighbor's fenced yard to retrieve a ball that had rolled inside, knowing the neighbor kept a border collie with a history of nipping. The dog bit him. Santos's voluntary entry into the enclosure constituted assumption of the risk and therefore barred his strict-liability claim against the dog's possessor.
Standing in Spray Path During Scheduled Application
Sofia Stern remained in her yard repairing equipment after receiving notice that Summit Bank had scheduled aerial pesticide application on adjacent fields. Wind carried the spray onto her property and caused injury. Stern's decision to stay outside despite the known schedule amounted to knowingly and unreasonably subjecting herself to the risk, providing a defense to the applicator's strict liability for the abnormally dangerous activity.
Common questions
Frequently Asked
5
Does contributory negligence bar recovery in strict liability cases involving animals or abnormally dangerous activities?+
Contributory negligence is generally not a defense to strict liability for the possessor of an animal or one who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity. The defense arises only when the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably subjects himself to the specific risk created by the animal or activity.
Supporting sources
When is assumption of the risk a defense to strict liability for animals?+
Assumption of the risk bars recovery when the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily encounters the danger posed by the animal. The defense applies even if the possessor exercised the utmost care to confine the animal.
Supporting sources
How does strict liability in tort differ from negligence in products cases?+
Strict liability focuses on the defective condition of the product rather than the seller's conduct. The plaintiff need not prove negligence, and the rule applies even when the seller exercised all possible care in preparation and sale.
Supporting sources
Does assumption of the risk bar recovery when a plaintiff knowingly enters an animal enclosure?+
Yes. When the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably subjects himself to the specific risk posed by the animal, assumption of the risk is a complete defense to the possessor's strict liability.
Supporting sources
When does contributory negligence become a defense in abnormally dangerous activity cases?+
Contributory negligence bars recovery only if the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjects himself to the precise risk created by the activity. Ordinary negligence does not suffice.
Supporting sources
strict liability
is imposed upon the maker or seller of the product. Recovery of damages does not depend upon proof of negligence or knowledge of the defect. Simon v. Graham Bakery, supra ; Tomlinson v.…
strict liability in tort
. The court reversed the trial court's ruling that the second cause of action could not be maintained against the Flood Control Di
strict
under the theory of inverse condemnation. The case…
for media publication of allegedly false statements that are claimed to defame a private individual. While providing the required "breathing space" for First Amendment freedoms, the Gertz…
TortsStrict liability and products liability · Claims against manufacturers and other defendants arising out of the manufacture and distribution of products, and defenses to such claimsUBEIntermediate