Also known as: strict liability
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Liability imposed on a party for harm caused by certain animals or abnormally dangerous activities without regard to the party's fault or negligence. The rule applies even when the party exercised reasonable care to prevent the harm.
Seth Shapiro keeps a tiger on his rural property for a roadside attraction. Stella Shapiro walks near the enclosure despite posted warnings and is gored after leaning over the fence. Stella's decision to approach the enclosure constitutes contributory negligence, yet she recovers damages from Seth because that defense does not apply to strict liability for wild animals.
Sarah Sullivan, a local pediatrician who occasionally speaks at town halls, sues a blog for falsely accusing her of insurance fraud in an article on a matter of public concern. The blog published the statements without verifying key facts. Sarah may recover only upon showing at least negligence by the blog. Strict liability is unavailable under constitutional limits.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Sasha Stone enters an enclosure housing an abnormally dangerous domestic animal despite clear posted warnings that contact is prohibited. The animal injures Sasha after she reaches over the fence. Sasha's conduct of knowingly and unreasonably subjecting herself to the risk bars recovery under the strict liability rule.
Sofia Stern voluntarily enters a tiger enclosure at a private zoo after signing a waiver acknowledging the danger. The tiger attacks and injures Sofia. Her assumption of the risk of harm from the animal defeats the strict liability claim against the zoo owner.
Sterling Manufacturing conducts aerial pesticide spraying on its fields. Selena Singh remains outdoors on her adjacent property repairing equipment despite posted notices and prior warnings to stay inside during flights. Wind shifts the spray onto Selena, causing injury. Her voluntary and unreasonable exposure to the known risk of drifting chemicals bars recovery on strict liability grounds.
Sierra Solutions maintains a tiger on its fenced industrial site. Sasha Stone intentionally climbs the fence at night to photograph the animal and is attacked. Sasha has no claim for strict liability against Sierra Solutions because the rule does not impose liability to one who intentionally trespasses on the land.
Contributory negligence does not bar recovery except when the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably subjects himself to the risk of harm from the animal or activity. The rule places the loss on the party who chose to keep the animal or conduct the activity rather than on the victim.
Yes. The plaintiff's assumption of the risk of harm from the animal is a complete defense to strict liability. This defense applies even when ordinary contributory negligence would not bar recovery.
No. A possessor of land is not subject to strict liability to one who intentionally or negligently trespasses for harm done by a wild animal or abnormally dangerous domestic animal kept on the land.
The First Amendment requires at least a showing of negligence before a private plaintiff may recover compensatory damages. Strict liability would violate constitutional limits that protect speech on public issues while still allowing recovery when fault is proven.
…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…