Also known as: strict liability · absolute liability
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A liability standard that holds a party responsible for harm or an offense without requiring proof of fault, negligence, or intent. The standard attaches once the plaintiff or prosecution establishes the required elements of the underlying conduct or condition. Defenses such as contributory negligence are unavailable except in narrowly defined circumstances involving voluntary and unreasonable exposure to a known risk.
Simon Stern operated a crop-dusting service over neighboring farmland. Wind carried pesticide onto Stella Shapiro's property while she repaired equipment outdoors despite posted warnings. Shapiro sued Stern under strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity. Stern's evidence that Shapiro remained outside after notice did not defeat the claim because contributory negligence is unavailable as a defense.
Samuel Soto, a private citizen, sued Sapphire Technologies after the company published an article accusing him of misconduct in a local development dispute. Soto proved the statements were false and caused reputational harm but offered no evidence of actual malice. The court dismissed the strict-liability claim because private plaintiffs on matters of public concern may not recover without at least a showing of negligence.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Southland Foods purchased a bulk additive later found to contain a banned preservative. State inspectors charged the company under a statute imposing liability solely on the presence of the substance. Because the statute imposed absolute liability on a material element, the offense was reclassified as a violation rather than a felony.
Steven Silva approached a bison enclosure on Stonehaven Properties despite multiple warning signs. A bison gored him after he leaned over the fence. Silva's claim for strict liability failed because he knowingly and unreasonably subjected himself to the risk that the wild animal would cause harm.
Sylvia Santos entered a restricted area on Solstice Ventures property to photograph a captive wolf despite posted barriers. The wolf injured her through the fence. Santos's strict-liability claim was defeated because she assumed the risk of harm from the animal.
Serena Soto remained near an active blasting site operated by Southland Foods after receiving explicit warnings to leave. Flying debris injured her. Soto's strict-liability claim failed because she knowingly and unreasonably subjected herself to the risk of harm from the abnormally dangerous activity.
Contributory negligence does not bar recovery unless the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably subjects himself to the known risk of harm from the activity. The defense is unavailable when the plaintiff merely fails to take ordinary precautions or encounters the risk without knowledge of its specific character.
Supporting sources
Yes. A plaintiff who voluntarily encounters the known danger posed by a wild animal assumes the risk and cannot recover under strict liability even though the possessor exercised utmost care.
Supporting sources
The offense is reduced to a violation. Absolute liability on any material element converts the crime into a violation rather than a misdemeanor or felony under Model Penal Code section 2.05(2)(a).
Supporting sources
No. Strict liability is forbidden. A private plaintiff suing over speech on a matter of public concern must prove at least negligence and may recover presumed or punitive damages only upon proof of actual malice.
Supporting sources
…in compensating private individuals for injury to reputation, yet shields the press and broadcast media from the rigors of strict liability for defamation. At the same time, we do not hold that the Constitution requires that the States apply the New York Times rule in all cases. We hold only that so long as they do not…