|
Sponsored Links
Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes a person responsible for the damage and loss caused by his/her acts and omissions regardless of culpability (or fault in criminal law terms, which would normally be expressed through a mens rea requirement; see Strict liability (criminal). Strict liability is important in torts (especially product liability), corporations law, and criminal law. For analysis of the pros and cons of strict liability as applied to product liability, the most important strict liability regime, see product liability. In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortious intent[1]). The plaintiff needs to prove only that the tort happened and that the defendant was responsible. Strict liability is imposed for legal infractions that are malum prohibitum rather than malum in se, therefore, neither good faith nor the fact that the defendant took all possible precautions are valid defenses. Strict liability often applies to those engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous ventures Strict liability is distinct from absolute liability. In absolute liability, only a guilty act, or actus reus is required. With strict liability, a guilty act and a guilty mind, or mens rea is required. In strict liability situations, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defense of absence of fault. A classic example of strict liability is the owner of a tiger rehabilitation center. No matter how strong the tiger cages are, if an animal escapes and causes damage and injury, the owner is held liable. Another example is a contractor hiring a demolition subcontractor that lacks proper insurance. If the subcontractor makes a mistake, the contractor is strictly liable for any damage that occurs.
|
Strict Liability Subcategories
Strict Liability Articles
|
|
