Also known as: strict liability torts · strict liability · absolute liability tort
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A tort imposing liability on a defendant for harm caused by certain activities or animals without requiring proof of negligence or intent.
Scott Summers remained outside repairing equipment after receiving notice of scheduled pesticide flights over neighboring fields. Wind shifted the spray onto his property and caused injury. The crop-dusting operator remains subject to strict liability even though Summers chose to continue work outdoors.
Solomon Silver, a widely known industry commentator, injected himself into a public debate over product safety standards. A media outlet published a critical article about him. Silver must prove at least negligence to recover damages and cannot rely on strict liability.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Stephen Shaw ignored posted warnings and leaned over a fence into an enclosure holding wild bison. A bison gored him. The possessor may raise Shaw's knowing and unreasonable exposure as a defense to strict liability.
Samuel Soto entered a fenced area marked with warnings about dangerous animals to photograph a calf. An animal injured him. The possessor can assert assumption of the risk as a complete defense to strict liability.
Sabrina Shah stayed outdoors on her property after learning of aerial pesticide application nearby. Spray drifted onto her and caused harm. The operator may defend on the ground that Shah knowingly and unreasonably subjected herself to the risk.
Steven Silva intentionally crossed posted land to reach a neighboring field. An animal kept on the land injured him. The possessor owes no strict liability to the intentional trespasser for harm caused by the animal.
Contributory negligence is not a defense except when the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjects himself to the risk of harm from a wild or abnormally dangerous domestic animal.
Supporting sources
Yes. The plaintiff's assumption of the risk of harm from the animal is a defense to strict liability.
Supporting sources
No. A possessor of land is not subject to 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
Contributory negligence is not a defense except when the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjects himself to the risk of harm from the activity.
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…