Also known as: strict liability theory · strict liability · absolute liability · liability without fault
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A basis for imposing liability for harm caused by wild animals, abnormally dangerous domestic animals, or abnormally dangerous activities without regard to the defendant's fault or negligence. Contributory negligence does not bar recovery unless the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjected himself to the risk of harm or assumed the risk.
A basis for imposing liability for harm caused by wild animals, abnormally dangerous domestic animals, or abnormally dangerous activities without regard to the defendant's fault or negligence. Contributory negligence does not bar recovery unless the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjected himself to the risk of harm or assumed the risk.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A legislative imposition of liability for an offense defined outside the Model Penal Code without requiring proof of a culpable mental state as to a material element, resulting in classification as a violation rather than a crime unless culpable commission is separately charged and proved.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A legislative imposition of liability for an offense defined outside the Model Penal Code without requiring proof of a culpable mental state as to a material element, resulting in classification as a violation rather than a crime unless culpable commission is separately charged and proved.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Russell stayed outside repairing equipment on his farm after receiving notice that Bright Ag would apply pesticides by air. Wind shifted the spray onto his property and caused injury. Russell sued Bright Ag under strict liability for the abnormally dangerous activity. The court permitted recovery even though Russell remained outdoors after the warning because contributory negligence does not bar strict liability for such activities.
Lucas collected large volumes of liquid manure in open pits on his rural property to expand a dairy operation. Gases built up and migrated onto Russell's adjacent land, causing respiratory injury. Russell sued under strict liability for the abnormally dangerous activity. The court imposed liability without proof of negligence because the use was non-natural and created a high risk of escape.
Russell leaned over a fence to photograph a bison calf despite posted warnings at Lucas's roadside attraction. A bison gored him. Russell sued Lucas under strict liability for harm by a wild animal. The court barred recovery because Russell knowingly and unreasonably subjected himself to the risk of harm from the animal.
Russell walked near Lucas's herd to complain about pesticide exposure even though he knew the border collie had previously nipped workers. The dog bit him. Russell sued under strict liability for the abnormally dangerous domestic animal. The court barred recovery because Russell had assumed the risk of harm from the animal.
Russell walked past posted warnings and entered the area of Lucas's open liquid-manure pits to reach the bison enclosure. Gases ignited and caused injury. Russell sued Lucas under strict liability for the abnormally dangerous activity. The court barred recovery because Russell knowingly and unreasonably subjected himself to the risk of harm from the activity.
Contributory negligence is not a defense unless the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjected himself to the risk of harm from the activity. The rule preserves strict liability while recognizing assumption of risk or voluntary unreasonable exposure as a bar.
Supporting sources
Yes. The plaintiff's assumption of the risk of harm from the animal bars recovery under strict liability. This defense operates independently of ordinary contributory negligence.
Supporting sources
Yes. When the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjects himself to the risk that a wild animal will cause harm, contributory negligence defeats the strict-liability claim even though ordinary negligence would not.
Supporting sources
Clear Plastics received a bulk additive from a supplier that contained a banned preservative due to the supplier's clerical error. State inspectors found the preservative in finished products and charged the company with a felony 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.
When absolute liability is imposed on a material element and conviction rests solely on that element, the offense constitutes a violation. The legislature's purpose to impose absolute liability triggers the reduction unless culpable commission is separately charged.
Supporting sources
…Law of Torts , p. 493 (1955). The particular importance of this advance resides in the fact that under such circumstances 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.…