Also known as: strict liability rules · strict liability
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A tort doctrine that imposes liability for harm caused by wild animals, abnormally dangerous domestic animals, or abnormally dangerous activities without requiring proof of the defendant's negligence or other fault. The rule attaches once the defendant possesses the animal or carries on the activity and the harm occurs. Contributory negligence does not bar recovery unless the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjects himself to the risk.
Spencer Silver hired Summit Bank to aerially apply pesticides on his fields. Neighbor Simone Sanders remained outside on her adjacent property despite posted warnings and a known schedule. Wind carried the spray onto Sanders and caused respiratory injury. Because the activity qualifies as abnormally dangerous, Summit Bank faces strict liability even though Sanders stayed outside after notice.
Sierra Santos, a private citizen, posted online criticism of a local development project. A newspaper article labeled her a public figure and published false statements about her motives. Santos sued for defamation without proving actual malice. The court applied the rule that strict liability is unavailable to private plaintiffs on matters of public concern.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Sasha Stone kept bison in a roadside pen on her farm. Visitor Serena Soto leaned over the fence despite warning signs and was gored. Soto sued Stone for the resulting injuries. Stone faces strict liability for harm from the wild animal even though Soto approached the enclosure.
Simon Stern kept a border collie known to nip workers. Guest Sierra Santos entered the pasture to photograph livestock and was bitten. Santos sued Stern under strict liability for the bite. Stern remains liable even though Santos voluntarily entered the area where the dog worked.
Southland Foods operated liquid-manure pits that produced explosive gases. Neighbor Synergy Systems employee Spencer Silver walked near the pits despite posted warnings and suffered injury from a gas release. Silver sued under strict liability for the abnormally dangerous activity. The claim proceeds because Silver's decision to approach does not automatically bar recovery.
Summit Bank maintained a fenced area with dangerous dogs on its property. Intruder Simone Sanders entered at night to steal equipment and was bitten. Sanders sued the bank for the injuries under strict liability. The bank owes no strict liability duty to the intentional trespasser even though the dogs were kept on the land.
Contributory negligence bars recovery only when the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjects himself to the risk that the animal will cause harm. Mere negligence in failing to discover the risk does not suffice. Assumption of the risk remains a separate complete defense.
Supporting sources
No. A possessor of land owes no strict liability to one who intentionally or negligently trespasses for harm done by a wild or abnormally dangerous domestic animal kept on the land.
Supporting sources
No. Strict liability is forbidden. Private plaintiffs must prove at least negligence and may recover presumed or punitive damages only upon proof of actual malice.
Supporting sources
Contributory negligence is not a defense unless the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjects himself to the risk of harm from the activity.
Supporting sources
…today it bears not on jurisdiction but on the possible desirability of imposing substantive principles of tort law such as strict liability. [^maj-12]: As we have noted, petitioners earn no direct revenues from these service centers. See supra , at 289. [^maj-13]: In fact, a courtroom just across the state line from a…