The elements of strict liability depend on the type of case. Generally speaking, though, the elements are:
- the defendant had something dangerous,
- the dangerous thing put you at risk through no fault of your own, and
- it caused you to get hurt.
Strict liability comes up in civil cases involving products liability, dog bites, and inherently dangerous activities.
Effects of strict liability in personal injury claims
Personal injury claims based on strict liability do not have to prove that the defendant was negligent or at fault. According to the wrongful death and personal injury lawyers at our law firm, this makes these claims much easier to win. However, because it imposes liability without culpability, strict liability is only used in limited circumstances.
Typically, personal injury claims, also called tort claims, only succeed if the plaintiff can prove that:
- the defendant owed them a duty of care,
- the defendant breached that duty of care, and
- that breach caused the plaintiff’s injury.[1]
The existence of the duty of care and its breach is what amounts to negligence. Generally, people are legally obligated to act like a reasonably prudent person would act in similar circumstances. Failing to act with due care is to act negligently.[2]
Proving that the defendant acted negligently can be difficult.
Cases based on strict liability do not need to show that the defendant was negligent in order to succeed. They just need to prove causation. This can be unfair to the defendant, who may have done all he or she could have done to avoid the harm caused. This is why personal injury law only imposes strict liability in limited circumstances. The most common instances are:
- product liability claims,
- dog bites, and
- injuries caused by inherently dangerous activities.
Strict product liability claims
Product liability law holds product manufacturers or retailers strictly liable for injuries caused by their:
- design defects,
- manufacturing defects, and
- failure to warn consumers of the product’s dangers.
If you get hurt by a product defect, you do not have to show that the defect was the result of the company’s negligence. Instead, you just need to show that you got hurt while using the product as it was intended to be used, or your use of the product was reasonably foreseeable.[3]
“The purpose of such liability is to insure that the costs of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by the manufacturers that put such products on the market rather than by the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves. Sales warranties serve this purpose fitfully at best.”[4]
Even if you cannot prove the strict liability case, you can still succeed if you can prove that the manufacturer was negligent. However, our lawyers have found that product liability cases based on the legal theory of negligence are more difficult to win than those based on the theory of strict liability.
Dog bites
Strict liability is used by many states for injuries caused by dog bites or attacks. In these states, dog owners are liable for any injuries their dog causes, no matter what they did to prevent it.
For example, in California, you have a cause of action against the dog owner under strict liability if:
- you were bitten in a public place or were not trespassing in a private location, and
- you did not provoke the dog.[5]
Not all states use strict liability claims for dog bites. Other states use the “one bite rule.” Under this rule, you would still have to prove that the dog owner was negligent in how they controlled their pet. However, you can prove that they were negligent if they were aware of their dog’s dangerous propensities. You can show that they were aware of these dangers if the dog had bitten someone before.[6]
Some states that use the one-bite rule for dogs may still impose strict liability on the owners of what are normally wild animals.[7]
Inherently dangerous activities
Many state tort laws also use strict liability in cases involving injuries caused by inherently or abnormally dangerous activities. Most of these states determine whether it was an ultrahazardous activity or an abnormally dangerous one based on the following 6 factors:
- whether there is a high degree of risk of some harm to a person, or to someone else’s land or property,
- how likely the harm that results from that risk will be great,
- the inability to eliminate the risk of harm by using reasonable care,
- how common the activity is,
- whether the activity is an appropriate one for the place in which it is being done, and
- whether the activity’s value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes.[8]
If, based on these factors, an activity is deemed to be abnormally dangerous, than the person or company doing it is strictly liable for any losses caused by it.
Some examples of abnormally dangerous activities have been:
- storing dynamite,[9]
- transporting large quantities of dangerous cargo,[10]
- using toxic chemicals to kill pests,[11] and
- vibrations from testing jet engines, which caused property damage in the area.[12]
Elements of strict liability in criminal cases
Strict liability is also used in criminal law.
Typically, crimes are composed of 2 elements:
- the criminally culpable mind, and
- the criminally culpable act.
For example, assault is the willful and unlawful use of force on another person. The act is the unlawful use of force, while the mind is willful.
Strict liability crimes do not require a culpable mental state, only the culpable act. They are generally low-level offenses and traffic violations, like speeding.
Driving under the influence (DUI) is a strict liability law. To be liable for drunk driving, you must have been driving a motor vehicle while having a blood alcohol concentration at or above the legal limit. Doing so willfully or intentionally is not an element of the crime.
Statutory rape is another example of a strict liability offense. It does not matter whether you were aware of the other person’s age. The act alone is enough to establish liability.
Legal Citations:
[1] Ladd v. County of San Mateo, 12 Cal.4th 913 (Cal. 1996).
[2] California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) No. 401.
[3] Soule v. GM Corp., 8 Cal.4th 548 (Cal. 1994).
[4] Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal.2d 57, 63-64 (Cal. 1963).
[5] California Civil Code 3342 CC.
[6] See Borns v. Voss, 70 P.3d 262 (2003) (Wyoming).
[7] American States Ins. Co. v. Guillermin, 671 N.E.2d 317 (Ohio App. 1996).
[8] See, e.g., Shuck v. Beck, 497 P.3d 395 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021) and Restatement of Torts section 520.
[9] Yukon Equipment v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 585 P.2d 1206 (Alaska 1978).
[10] National Steel Service Center, Inc. v. Gibbons, 319 N.W.2d 269 (Iowa 1982).
[11] Old Island Fumigation, Inc. v. Barbee, 604 So.2d 1246 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992).
[12] Smith v. Lockheed Propulsion Co., 247 Cal. App. 2d 774 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967).
