Strict liability imposes responsibility for harm without proof that the defendant was careless. The question is not how the defendant behaved but what the defendant did and what it caused. The law uses it where an activity is so dangerous, or a relationship so one-sided in information, that placing the loss on the actor is fairer and produces better incentives than asking a jury to grade conduct after the fact.
Rule
- Abnormally dangerous activities. Courts weigh the risk of serious harm, whether reasonable care can eliminate that risk, how common the activity is, whether it is appropriate to the place, and its value to the community.
- Animals. Owners are strictly liable for damage by trespassing livestock and for harm from wild animals, and for domestic animals with known dangerous tendencies.
- Products. A commercial seller is liable for a product sold in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user, covering manufacturing defects, design defects and failures to warn.
- Limits. The harm must be the kind of harm that made the activity dangerous, and causation and damages still have to be proved.
- Defenses. Assumption of risk and, in many states, comparative fault apply. Ordinary contributory negligence traditionally did not.
Leading cases
- Rylands v. Fletcher: a landowner who brought water onto his land for a non-natural use was liable when it escaped and flooded a neighbor's mine, regardless of care.
- Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno: Justice Traynor's concurrence argued that a manufacturer should be strictly liable for a defective product that causes injury.
- Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.: California adopted that position, holding a manufacturer strictly liable in tort for a defective product without any contract or warranty theory.
Where students go wrong
The first mistake is thinking strict means automatic. The plaintiff still has to prove causation and damages, and the harm has to flow from the very danger that justified strict liability in the first place.
The second is skipping negligence. Strict liability rarely displaces a negligence claim, and a strong answer pleads both, because a jury that rejects one may accept the other.
The third is missing the design defect split. Some states apply a consumer expectation test, others a risk utility test that asks about a reasonable alternative design, and the choice usually decides the case.
FAQ
What makes an activity abnormally dangerous?
A high risk of serious harm that reasonable care cannot eliminate, in an activity that is uncommon and out of place where it is carried on. Blasting is the standard example.
Is a retailer liable for a defective product it did not make?
Usually yes. Strict products liability reaches commercial sellers in the distribution chain, though many states let a retailer shift the loss back to the manufacturer.
Does contributory negligence defeat strict liability?
Traditionally no, though assumption of risk did. Most comparative fault states now reduce a strict liability award by the plaintiff's share of responsibility.
Related terms
Working through this in your own casebook takes longer than reading it here. Syllume starts from your syllabus and turns each assigned case into a brief you can study from.