Strict liability

Last updated

In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant. [1]

Contents

Under the strict liability law, if the defendant possesses anything that is inherently dangerous, as specified under the "ultrahazardous" definition, the defendant is then strictly liable for any damages caused by such possession, no matter how careful the defendant is safeguarding them. [2]

In the field of torts, prominent examples of strict liability may include product liability, abnormally dangerous activities (e.g., blasting), intrusion onto another's land by livestock, and ownership of wild animals. [3]

Other than activities specified above (like ownership of wild animals, etc), US courts have historically considered the following activities as "ultrahazardous": [4]

  1. storing flammable liquids in quantity in an urban area
  2. pile driving
  3. blasting
  4. crop dusting
  5. fumigation with cyanide gas
  6. emission of noxious fumes by a manufacturing plant located in a settled area
  7. locating oil wells or refineries in populated communities
  8. test firing solid-fuel rocket motors. [5]

On the other hand, US courts typically rule the following activities as not "ultrahazardous": parachuting, drunk driving, maintaining power lines, and letting water escape from an irrigation ditch. [6]

In the English system, in reality, responsibility is tailored to the evidentiary system: that is, to the admissibility of defenses and excuses capable of neutralizing the punishability of the actus reus; and therefore the different forms of strict liability can be differentiated according to the defenses allowed by the individual legal systems. [7]

Tort law

In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortious intent). The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible. The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous. [8] It discourages reckless behaviour and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. It has the beneficial effect of simplifying and thereby expediting court decisions in these cases, although the application of strict liability may seem unfair or harsh, as in Re Polemis . [9]

Under the English law of negligence and nuisance, even where tortious liability is strict, the defendant may sometimes be liable only for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his act or omission. [10]

An early example of strict liability is the rule Rylands v Fletcher , where it was held that "any person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape". If the owner of a zoo keeps lions and tigers, he is liable if the big cats escape and cause damage or injury. [11]

In strict liability situations, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defense of absence of fault, especially in cases of product liability, where the defense may argue that the defect was the result of the plaintiff's actions and not of the product, that is, no inference of defect should be drawn solely because an accident occurs. [12] If the plaintiff can prove that the defendant knew about the defect before the damages occurred, additional punitive damages can be awarded to the victim in some jurisdictions. [13]

The doctrine's most famous advocates were Learned Hand, Benjamin Cardozo, and Roger J. Traynor. [14]

Strict liability is sometimes distinguished from absolute liability. In this context, an actus reus may be excused from strict liability if due diligence is proved. Absolute liability, however, requires only an actus reus . [15]

Vaccines

In the United States courts have applied strict liability to vaccines [16] since the Cutter incident in 1955. [17] Some vaccines (e.g. for Lyme disease) [18] have been removed from the market because of unacceptable liability risk to the manufacturer. [19]

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) was enacted in 1986 to make an exception for childhood vaccines that are required for public school attendance. The NCVIA created a no-fault compensation scheme to stabilize a vaccine market adversely affected by an increase in vaccine-related lawsuits, and to facilitate compensation to claimants who found pursuing legitimate vaccine-inflicted injuries too difficult and cost prohibitive. [17] [20]

Bicycle–motor vehicle collisions

A form of strict liability has been supported in law in the Netherlands since the early 1990s for bicycle-motor vehicle collisions. [21] In a nutshell, this means that, in a collision between a car and a cyclist, the driver is deemed to be liable to pay damages and his insurer (motor vehicle insurance is mandatory in the Netherlands, while cyclist insurance is not) must pay the full damages, as long as 1) the collision was unintentional (i.e. neither party, motorist or cyclist, intentionally crashed into the other), and 2) the cyclist was not in error in some way. [21] Even if a cyclist made an error, as long as the collision was still unintentional, the motorist's insurance must still pay half of the damages. This does not apply if the cyclist is under 14 years of age, in which case the motorist must pay full damages. [21] If it can be proved that a cyclist intended to collide with the car, then the cyclist must pay the damages (or their parents in the case of a minor). [21]

General aviation

The trend toward strict liability in the United States during the mid to late 20th century nearly destroyed the small aircraft industry by the mid 1990s. Production had dropped from a peak of 18,000 units per year in 1978 to under only a few hundred by 1993. [22] [23] With a concurrent increase in the cost of liability insurance per airplane rising from $50 in 1962 to $100,000 in 1988, and many underwriters had begun to refuse all new policies. [24] [25] [26] [23]

Criminal law

The concept of strict liability is also found in criminal law. Strict liability often applies to vehicular traffic offenses: in a speeding case, for example, whether the defendant knew that the posted speed limit was being exceeded is irrelevant; the prosecutor need only prove that the defendant was driving the vehicle in excess of the posted speed limit.

In the United States, strict liability can be determined by looking at the intent of the legislature. If the legislature seems to have purposefully left out a mental state element (mens rea) because they felt mental state need not be proven, it is treated as a strict liability. However, when a statute is silent as to the mental state (mens rea) and it is not clear that the legislature purposely left it out, the ordinary presumption is that a mental state is required for criminal liability. When no mens rea is specified, under the Model Penal Code (MPC), the default mens rea requirement is recklessness, which the MPC defines as "when a person consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk with respect to a material element". [27]

Strict liability laws can also prevent defendants from raising diminished mental capacity defenses, since intent does not need to be proven. [28]

In the English case of Sweet v Parsley (1970), it was held that where a statute creating a crime [29] made no reference to intention, then mens rea would be imputed by the court, so that the crime would not be one of strict liability.

See also

References [30]

  1. ↑ Gray, Anthony (2021-02-25). The Evolution from Strict Liability to Fault in the Law of Torts. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN   978-1-5099-4100-1.
  2. ↑ Best, Arthur; Barnes, David W.; Kahn-Fogel, Nicholas (2018-02-13). Basic Tort Law: Cases, Statutes, and Problems: Cases, Statutes, and Problems. Aspen Publishing. ISBN   978-1-4548-9763-7.
  3. ↑ Hylton, Keith N. (2016-06-06). Tort Law: A Modern Perspective. Cambridge University Press. ISBN   978-1-107-12532-2.
  4. ↑ Emanuel, Steven L. (2024-01-26). Emanuel Law Outlines for Torts. Aspen Publishing. ISBN   978-1-5438-0757-8.
  5. ↑ Wagner, Gerhard (2005-10-27). Tort Law and Liability Insurance. Taylor & Francis. ISBN   978-3-211-24482-1.
  6. ↑ Baldwin, Scott; Jr, Francis H. Hare; McGovern, Francis E. (2012-12-13). Product Liability Case Digest, 2013-2014 Edition. Wolters Kluwer. ISBN   978-1-4548-0984-5.
  7. ↑ Licci, Giorgio (2014-03-14). Modelli nel diritto penale: Filogenesi del linguaggio penalistico. II edizione (in Italian). Giappichelli. ISBN   978-88-348-4731-2.
  8. ↑ Cantú, Charles E. (January 2, 2002). "Distinguishing the Concept of Strict Liability for Ultra-Hazardous Activities from Strict Liability Under Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts: Two Parallel Lines of Reasoning that Should Never Meet" (PDF). University of Akron Law Review . University of Akron School of Law . Retrieved May 2, 2012.[ permanent dead link ]
  9. ↑ Mendelson, Danuta (2017-03-02). Causation in Law and Medicine. Routledge. ISBN   978-1-351-95302-3.
  10. ↑ Mulheron, Rachael (2020-10-22). Principles of Tort Law. Cambridge University Press. ISBN   978-1-108-57512-6.
  11. ↑ Gray, Anthony (2021-02-25). The Evolution from Strict Liability to Fault in the Law of Torts. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN   978-1-5099-4101-8.
  12. ↑ Hinckley v. La Mesa R.V. Center, Inc., 158 Cal. App.3d 630, 205 Cal. Rptr. 22 (1984)
  13. ↑ III, H. Beau Baez (2023-07-20). Tort Law in the United States. Kluwer Law International B.V. ISBN   978-94-035-1297-6.
  14. ↑ Napolitano, Giulio; Resta, Giorgio (2019-12-23). Roma Tre Law Review: n.2/2019. Roma TrE-Press.
  15. ↑ Jurgielewicz, Lynne M. (1996). Global Environmental Change and International Law: Prospects for Progress in the Legal Order. University Press of America. ISBN   978-0-7618-0285-3.
  16. ↑ Emanuel, Steven L. (2024-01-26). Emanuel Law Outlines for Torts. Aspen Publishing. ISBN   978-1-5438-0757-8.
  17. 1 2 Offit, Paul A. (2005). The Cutter Incident: How America's First Polio Vaccine Led to the Growing Vaccine Crisis. Yale University Press. ISBN   978-0-300-10864-4.
  18. ↑ Hall, Mark A.; Bobinski, Mary Anne; Orentlicher, David; Cohen, I. Glenn; Bagley, Nicholas; Sawicki, Nadia N. (2024-02-28). Health Care Law and Ethics. Aspen Publishing. ISBN   978-1-5438-3887-9.
  19. ↑ Detels, Roger; Gulliford, Martin; Karim, Quarraisha Abdool; Tan, Chorh Chuan (2017). Oxford Textbook of Global Public Health. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-881013-1.
  20. ↑ Bentley, Linda (July 3, 2017). "Why vaccine manufacturers are exempt from liability". Sonoran News.
  21. 1 2 3 4 Wagenbuur, Mark (21 February 2013). "Strict liability in the Netherlands". BicycleDutch website. Retrieved 5 December 2013.
  22. ↑ "United States Senator John McCain". mccain.senate.gov. Archived from the original on 2017-12-12. Retrieved 2018-07-19.
  23. 1 2 Kister, Thomas H. (1 January 1998). "General Aviation Revitalization Act: Its Effect on Manufacturers". Defense Counsel Journal. 65 (1).[ dead link ]
  24. ↑ "The rise and fall of general aviation: Product liability, market structure, and technological innovation". Archived from the original on 2017-07-11. Retrieved 2018-07-19.
  25. ↑ "Productivity Home Page". Bureau of Labor Statistics.
  26. ↑ AOPA Pilot staff, "Cessna Suspends Production of All Piston Models," AOPA Pilot magazine, July 1986, pp.24-25, Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association, Washington, D.C.
  27. ↑ Lee, Cynthia (2009). Criminal Law Cases and Materials. F. Strict Liability Crimes: WEST A Thomas Reuters Business. pp.  219–221, 989. ISBN   9780314151285.
  28. ↑ Joel Samaha (briefed by) (June 9, 2001). "Garnett v. State". Department of Sociology at the University of Minnesota. Retrieved September 14, 2011.
  29. ↑ In this case, the crime was the statutory crime of "being concerned in the management of premises used for smoking cannabis".
  30. ↑ Ventrella Mancini, Carmela (2000). "Il delitto preterintenzionale nell'ordinamento canonico: spunti di comparazione con il diritto penale italiano".

[1]

  1. ↑ "Ventrella-CV-D@S-2007". www.dirittoestoria.it. Retrieved 2024-06-26.

Related Research Articles

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

In criminal law, mens rea is the mental state of a defendant who is accused of committing a crime. In common law jurisdictions, most crimes require proof both of mens rea and actus reus before the defendant can be found guilty.

In criminal law, actus reus, Latin for "guilty act", is one of the elements normally required to prove commission of a crime in common law jurisdictions, the other being mens rea. In the United States it is sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime.

In Western jurisprudence, concurrence is the apparent need to prove the simultaneous occurrence of both actus reus and mens rea, to constitute a crime; except in crimes of strict liability. In theory, if the actus reus does not hold concurrence in point of time with the mens rea then no crime has been committed.

In criminal law, criminal negligence is an offence that involves a breach of an objective standard of behaviour expected of a defendant. It may be contrasted with strictly liable offences, which do not consider states of mind in determining criminal liability, or offenses that requires mens rea, a mental state of guilt.

An attempt to commit a crime occurs if a criminal has an intent to commit a crime and takes a substantial step toward completing the crime, but for reasons not intended by the criminal, the final resulting crime does not occur. Attempt to commit a particular crime is a crime, usually considered to be of the same or lesser gravity as the particular crime attempted. Attempt is a type of inchoate crime, a crime that is not fully developed. The crime of attempt has two elements, intent and some conduct toward completion of the crime.

Where two or more persons are liable in respect of the same liability, in most common law legal systems they may either be:

An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor. The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable for injuries no matter what precautions were taken.

In criminal law, a mistake of fact may sometimes mean that, while a person has committed the physical element of an offence, because they were labouring under a mistake of fact, they never formed the mental element. This is unlike a mistake of law, which is not usually a defense; law enforcement may or may not take for granted that individuals know what the law is.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Personal injury</span> Legal term for an injury to a person

Personal injury is a legal term for an injury to the body, mind, or emotions, as opposed to an injury to property. In common law jurisdictions the term is most commonly used to refer to a type of tort lawsuit in which the person bringing the suit has suffered harm to their body or mind. Personal injury lawsuits are filed against the person or entity that caused the harm through negligence, gross negligence, reckless conduct, or intentional misconduct, and in some cases on the basis of strict liability. Different jurisdictions describe the damages in different ways, but damages typically include the injured person's medical bills, pain and suffering, and diminished quality of life.

In law, the principle of imputation or attribution underpins the concept that ignorantia juris non excusat—ignorance of the law does not excuse. All laws are published and available for study in all developed states. The said imputation might also be termed "fair notice." The content of the law is imputed to all persons who are within the jurisdiction, no matter how transiently.

Causation is the "causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and end result". In other words, causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect, typically an injury. In criminal law, it is defined as the actus reus from which the specific injury or other effect arose and is combined with mens rea to comprise the elements of guilt. Causation only applies where a result has been achieved and therefore is immaterial with regard to inchoate offenses.

In criminal law and in the law of tort, recklessness may be defined as the state of mind where a person deliberately and unjustifiably pursues a course of action while consciously disregarding any risks flowing from such action. Recklessness is less culpable than malice, but is more blameworthy than carelessness.

The legal principle of vicarious liability applies to hold one person liable for the actions of another when engaged in some form of joint or collective activity.

In most common law jurisdictions, an element of a crime is one of a set of facts that must all be proven to convict a defendant of a crime. Before a court finds a defendant guilty of a criminal offense, the prosecution must present evidence that, even when opposed by any evidence the defense may choose, is credible and sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed each element of the particular crime charged. The component parts that make up any particular crime vary now depending on the crime.

Fault, as a legal term, refers to legal blameworthiness and responsibility in each area of law. It refers to both the actus reus and the mental state of the defendant. The basic principle is that a defendant should be able to contemplate the harm that his actions may cause, and therefore should aim to avoid such actions. Different forms of liability employ different notions of fault, in some there is no need to prove fault, but the absence of it.

Criminal law is the body of law that relates to crime. It prescribes conduct perceived as threatening, harmful, or otherwise endangering to the property, health, safety, and welfare of people inclusive of one's self. Most criminal law is established by statute, which is to say that the laws are enacted by a legislature. Criminal law includes the punishment and rehabilitation of people who violate such laws.

In the North American legal system and in US Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations, willful violation or willful non-compliance is a violation of workplace rules and policies that occurs either deliberately or as a result of neglect.

<i>Criminal law of the United States</i>

The criminal law of the United States is a manifold system of laws and practices that connects crimes and consequences. In comparison, civil law addresses non-criminal disputes. The system varies considerably by jurisdiction, but conforms to the US Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eggshell skull</span> Legal principle

The eggshell rule is a well-established legal doctrine in common law, used in some tort law systems, with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law. The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.