What Does Strict Liability Mean in Personal Injury Cases?

Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds a defendant responsible for the consequences of their actions, even in the absence of neglect or intent to cause harm.

This liability standard is important because it can help protect the public by holding other parties accountable for their actions. In doing so, those parties have a legal responsibility to ensure their products and activities are safe.

We'll explore strict liability in tort and criminal law, discuss strict liability vs. negligence, and reveal some common defenses against these liability claims.

What is strict liability?

The concept of strict liability makes a defendant liable for actions that harm others, regardless of whether they acted intentionally or even negligently. In other words, the defendant is considered strictly liable for any damages or injuries caused by their actions, even if they exercised due care.

Typically, strict liability rules apply to defendants like manufacturers producing products and parties engaging in abnormally dangerous activities. This reflects a public policy designed to improve public safety and encourage those who engage in such activities to take greater care while also making it easier for victims to receive compensation.

To prove strict liability cases, the plaintiff generally only needs to show that the defendant was engaged in activities covered by strict liability laws, and that the defendant’s actions caused them damages. Whether the defendant did the action on purpose or with malintent is irrelevant in strict liability cases. This differs from other legal standards that typically require the plaintiff to prove that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care, was reckless, or actually intended to cause harm.

Strict liability applies in both tort law and criminal law. While strict liability in tort and criminal law both hold the defendant liable without proof of intent or fault, their applications have some key differences.

Strict liability tort

Torts are acts or omissions that cause harm to others.  In the U.S. legal system, tortious activity can trigger liability to pay money damages and/or receive a court order (known as an injunction) to do or refrain from certain actions.  

There are all kinds of torts: two familiar categories are negligence (slip and fall, car accident) and intentional torts (fraud, assault, defamation).  Strict liability is a third category of tort that is generally limited to specific subject matter: defective products, animal attacks, and abnormally dangerous conditions.  Each of these is discussed below.

Product liability

In product liability claims, a victim can recover compensation from a manufacturer or seller for distributing a defective product that caused them harm. For example, the manufacturer may have failed to provide proper safety warnings that would help avoid harm, or the product may have exploded due to a manufacturing or design defect, resulting in injuries.

Strict product liability claims don't require plaintiffs to prove that the defendants acted negligently or intentionally in releasing defective products into the market; a plaintiff generally only needs to prove that the product was, in fact, defective and that defect caused them to suffer injury.

Dangerous animals

Strict liability in tort can also apply in cases of animal attacks. In practice, this can mean that if a pet or other animal you own injures someone, you may be liable to pay damages regardless of how well you’ve trained and taken care of your pet.

While many “dangerous animal”  strict liability cases involve exotic or wild animals, especially those known to have dangerous tendencies, they may, depending on the local laws, also include familiar household pets.

For instance, some states impose strict liability standards in case of dog bites.

Abnormally dangerous activities

The third category of strict liability torts in civil lawsuits holds parties involves so-called “abnormally dangerous activities.” Examples include storing explosives, transporting hazardous materials, demolition and blasting, and keeping wild animals.

Because these activities pose inherent dangers, when they do cause injuries, strict liability usually applies.

Strict liability in criminal law

Now, let's move on to strict liability crimes in criminal law.

Similar to the tort context, strict liability criminal laws generally do not require proof of intent or knowledge. In other words, whether or not the defendant intentionally or knowingly did something illegal is irrelevant: The prosecution generally need only prove that the defendant, in fact, engaged in the criminal conduct. Strict liability crimes are controversial as some people feel it’s unfair to impose criminal liability on someone even if they did not intend to cause harm. 

Some examples of criminal law strict liability offensives include the following:

• Statutory rape. The defendant had sexual intercourse with a minor without knowing or asking their age.
• Selling alcohol to minors. The seller sold alcohol to a minor who they believed was at least 21 years old.
• Driving over the speed limit. The driver may not have realized they were speeding, but they were caught driving 15 mph over the speed limit.

Strict liability vs. negligence: Key differences

If we look at strict liability vs. negligence, there are some key differences.

With strict liability offenses, the plaintiff does not need to prove the defendant's intent, negligence, or fault. The plaintiff simply needs to prove the defendant caused the damages. This means even a prudent person who took reasonable care could be held strictly liable in a personal injury case.

For example, let's consider a product liability claim where the plaintiff purchased a bookshelf, and the bookshelf has a design defect that causes it to topple over and break the plaintiff’s leg. Strict liability law says the plaintiff generally only needs to show that the defendant product manufacturer put a product into the market that, in fact, contains a design defect, and that the defect caused the plaintiff’s injuries.  There is no requirement to prove that the defendant intentionally designed the product to contain a defect.  

In contrast, negligence requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant breached a duty to exercise reasonable care, and that such conduct caused injury. This usually means offering evidence that the defendant didn't act as a reasonably prudent person would in similar circumstances.

For instance, let's say a distracted driver caused a car accident because they were texting on their phone and hadn't noticed the traffic light had changed. The driver didn't cause the accident on purpose, but their carelessness certainly contributed to the situation. To prove negligence, the plaintiff (the victim of the car crash) must demonstrate that the driver breached a duty of care, meaning that they should have been driving in a reasonably careful manner to prevent harm to others on the roadways, and that texting while driving falls below this reasonably careful standard.

What are common defenses to strict liability claims?

While strict liability cases tend to be easier to establish than cases involving negligence or intentional wrongdoing, there are some common defenses to strict liability claims we should address.

Assumption of risk

The assumption of risk defense argues that the plaintiff voluntarily engaged with the product or activity with an understanding of the associated risks.

For instance, maybe the plaintiff went skydiving, knowing full well that there was a significant risk of serious injury or death. Even if a faulty parachute caused an accident resulting in injuries, the plaintiff may not have a case since they entered the activity knowing it was considered abnormally dangerous. Whether a defense would succeed in such circumstances depends on the specific facts of the case, as well as the underlying state law. 

Statute of limitations

Most states have statutes of limitations that set time deadlines for filing strict liability claims. This means the plaintiff only has a certain amount of time to file a lawsuit after sustaining or discovery injury. If a court finds that the statute of limitations has expired, the claim is no longer valid and must be dismissed.

Statute of repose

Some states mandate a statute of repose in certain situations. A statute of repose is similar to statute of limitations in that it sets a deadline by which the plaintiff must take legal action, but it’s more strict in that it doesn't hinge on when damages were discovered. In fact, it’s possible that the statute of repose period could expire before the damages even occur.

Third-party fault

Another common defense is a third-party fault. This occurs when the defense can claim that another party contributed in whole or in part to the plaintiff’s injuries.

Compliance with regulations

In some cases, a defendant may be able to argue that they complied with all relevant safety regulations, industry standards, and laws, and so they shouldn't be found strictly liable for the damages.

Preparing for a strict liability claim

If you're considering filing a strict liability claim, we recommend consulting with an experienced personal injury lawyer  who can help you navigate the legal process. Whether it's a product liability lawsuit, animal attack, or a case involving abnormally dangerous activities, a lawyer can provide you with legal advice on what next steps to take.

FAQs

Check out the answers to some frequently asked questions about strict liability rules and cases.

Do I need a lawyer for a strict liability case?

Yes, we advise hiring a lawyer to oversee your strict liability case. They can provide legal counsel, represent you in court, and help you receive compensation for the injury or harm you experienced.

Consult with someone in our network of professional attorneys who can offer legal help.

What types of tort damages can be recovered under strict liability?

Some common types of damages that can be recovered under strict liability tort cases include medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, loss of life enjoyment, and property damage.

What’s the difference between tort law and personal injury law?

Tort law is a kind of civil law that oversees situations where someone is harmed by another's wrongdoing. Personal injury law is a subcategory of tort law that specifically looks at cases where someone suffered bodily or emotional harm due to negligence or intentional actions.

Is strict liability without fault?

Yes, in general, strict liability can be said not to involve legal “fault.” This means the defendant is held liable because they were responsible for the actions that resulted in damages, not because they intentionally committed the harm.

What must a plaintiff prove in a strict liability claim?

The plaintiff must first and foremost prove they were harmed as a result of the defendant's actions, and that the activity at issue is governed by strict liability.