
	Where results make sense

Topic: Strict liability

Related Topics

Tort

List of tort topics

Australian tort law

Delicts

United States tort law

Negligence

Culpability

Scots tort law

Law of obligations

Crime

Public nuisance

Defamation

Scottish law

Calculus of negligence

Criminal law

In the News (Wed 9 Dec 09)

Northern Trust

Marvin Harrison

Peter Chernin

Gary Locke

Match Play

Penelope Cruz

Mickey Rourke

AR Rahman

Danny Boyle

Hugh Jackman

	Strict Liability
		Whether or not to impose strict liability is often a consideration of a balance between the social stigma of the crime, against the evil of the crime.
		Strict liability requires the proof of mens rea in at least one element of the offence, but the prosecution will be relieved on the burden of proof for the other parts of the offence.
		The court further rejected the arguments that it was necessary to have a strict liability offence to protect children, or the difficulty in proving knowledge of the victims age.
	www.studywizard.org /criminal/strict.html (2306 words)

	SAMPLE: Memo re strict liability for chimp attack
		Strict liability for damage done by dangerous animals, both domestic and wild, is an instance of the strict liability placed on those who, even with proper care, expose the community to a very dangerous thing.
		The possessor of a domestic animal is generally subject to strict liability for harm the animal causes only if the possessor knew or had reason to know of a dangerous propensity or trait of the animal that is not characteristic of a domestic animal of that kind, and such knowledge must be proved.
		Even in cases where strict liability is imposed because the defendant's conduct has created an abnormal risk to the plaintiff, the sequence of events leading to the harm must have been such that it is not unfair to hold the defendant liable.
	www.elfis.net /elfol0/misctxts/chimplaw.htm (2296 words)

	Strict liability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes a person responsible for the damage and loss caused by their 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 sometimes called absolute liability to distinguish those situations where, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defense of absence of fault.
		In English and Welsh law, where tortious liability is strict, the defendant will often only be liable for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his or her act or omission (as in nuisance).
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Strict_liability (538 words)

	[No title] (Site not responding. Last check: )
		Alternatively, strict liability does not depend on the fault principle, that a party's fault is both necessary and sufficient to render the party liable, and replaces the requirement of fault with other criteria.
		Strict liability provides the best solution in scenarios where the additional liability exposure to possible defendants relative to the value of their activities is small or can be sufficiently subsumed into prices or insurance so that the liability does not discourage the activity entirely.
		Additionally, strict liability fits well when proof of fault is practically unattainable, but the public interest demands responsibility and compensation.} \par\pard\plain\s15{\f0\fs24\lang1033{\*\listtag0}\tab In cases where the injury to the plaintiff is caused by a product or process completely under the control of the defendant, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant.
	www.duke.edu /~ede2/strict.doc (1409 words)

	Product Liability - STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY, PRIVITY
		In the last 20 years the liability of a manufacturer has been greatly expanded as a result of the spread of the doctrine of strict liability and the adoption of new theories that permit recovery in so-called "delayed manifestation" cases.
		Strict liability requires only demonstrating that a product caused an injury because it was defective; the reason for the defect is irrelevant.
		Under strict liability, the manufacturer is held liable for allowing a defective product to enter the marketplace.
	www.referenceforbusiness.com /encyclopedia/Per-Pro/Product-Liability.html (2022 words)

	Strict Liability (Site not responding. Last check: )
		Strict liability in tort is the concept that in certain situations a defendant is liable for plaintiff's damages without any requirement that the plaintiff prove that the defendant was negligent.
		Strict liability is imposed against the manufacturer and in favor of the user or consumer in order to relieve injured consumers "from problems of proof inherent in pursuing negligence...
		The modern theory of liability for ultrahazardous activity is that certain activities create such a serious risk of danger that it is justifiable to place liability for any resultant loss on the person engaging in the activity, regardless of lack of culpability on his part.
	www.commonlawvenue.com /Court/082-Liability.htm (2247 words)

	Fault and strict liability (Richard Wright, 28 Feb 2006)
		Strict liability is liability in the absence of fault, but it is not absolute liability (a point legal economists often fail to grasp).
		Moreover, liability in the absence of fault is common and justified, especially when it is based on intentional (albeit reasonable) conduct.
		Such liability is just and necessary to secure the plaintiff's property rights and the right not to be used merely as a means for the benefit of others.
	www.ucc.ie /law/odg/messages/060228c.htm (772 words)

	Alternative Rules for Determining Tort Liability
		The application of the strict liability doctrine to blasting is illustrated in the New York case of Spano v.
		Fletcher is the landmark decision for strict liability.
		Strict liability applied in this case because gasoline transportation was a high-risk activity that created dangers that could not be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care.
	www.thelockeinstitute.org /journals/tortliability5.html (1179 words)

	Command Responsibility Is Not a Form of Strict Liability (Human Rights Watch, 25-6-2004)
		Strict liability exists in civil law, and represents liability for damage even if the damage is caused by no fault of the liable person.
		For example, parents are liable for the damage caused by their child under seven years of age, even if they can prove that they looked after the child with scrupulous care, or that the damage would have occurred even if they acted with such care.
		In these jurisdictions, there is limited room for strict liability in civil law (as in the example of parents’ liability for damage caused by their child), but there is no room for strict liability in criminal law.
	hrw.org /english/docs/2004/06/25/serbia8982.htm (681 words)

	Command Responsibility Is Not a Form of Strict Liability (Human Rights Watch, June 25, 2004)
		Strict liability exists in civil law, and represents liability for damage even if the damage is caused by no fault of the liable person.
		If the Hague tribunal indeed applied strict liability to criminal law — if superiors were responsible for the acts of their subordinates solely by virtue of being superiors — such practice would represent a serious weakening of the standards achieved in national jurisdictions in the territory of the former Yugoslavia.
		In these jurisdictions, there is limited room for strict liability in civil law (as in the example of parents’ liability for damage caused by their child), but there is no room for strict liability in criminal law.
	www.hrw.org /english/docs/2004/06/25/serbia8982_txt.htm (683 words)

	In Personam and Strict Liability of a Constructive Trustee by Receipt
		Insofar as the liability of the third party is concerned, he or she will be liable to a tracing claim by the beneficiary as long as the property remains in his or her hands.
		The traditional theory is that a third party is liable as a constructive trustee to account in personam if he or she receives trust property from a trustee with actual or constructive notice that such property is trust property and that such transfer to him or her was in breach of that trust.
		Those who argue in favour of strict liability suggest that the basis of the liability of the recipient, regardless of whether he or she has parted with possession of the trust property, is in the receipt of the trust property to which he or she is not entitled.
	www.hk-lawyer.com /1999-7/July99-71.htm (1918 words)

	Strict liability (criminal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		In criminal law, strict liability is liability where mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") does not have to be proved in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offence.
		The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal.
		Similarly, where liability is imputed or attributed to another through vicarious liability or corporate liability, the effect of that imputation may be strict liability albeit that, in some cases, the accused will have a mens rea imputed and so, in theory, will be as culpable as the actual wrongdoer.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal) (1164 words)

	Product Liability FAQ
		Strict liability applies when the defendant is engaged in the business of selling the product that caused the injury, and the product is expected to and does reach the consumer without a substantial change in the condition in which it was sold.
		A failure-to-warn claim can be in the nature of a negligence or a strict liability claim, depending on the facts of the particular case and the law of the state in which the claim is made.
		Some states, for example, have specific statutes that impose liability on sellers of adulterated alcoholic beverages for injuries to the consumer and his or her family and property resulting from the use of the beverage.
	www.tmgslaw.com /CM/FAQ/ProductLiabilityFAQ.asp?ss=faq-wrap-single-questions.xsl (3946 words)

	Strict Liability
		Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes some persons responsible for damages their actions or products cause, regardless of any "fault" on their part.
		Strict liability often applies when people engage in inherently hazardous activities, such as doing "blasting" in a city, or keeping wild circus animals.
		In strict product liability, typically anyone who is engaged in the stream of commerce of the product (from the manufacturer to the wholesaler to the retailer, or all of them) can be held responsible if the product was defective and someone was injured.
	ww2.kgw.com /Global/story.asp?S=1663265 (313 words)

	Strict Liability And Warning Defects (Site not responding. Last check: )
		Under the doctrine of strict liability, a manufacturer or distributor can be held strictly liable in tort when an article it places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury.
		[1] Courts have indicated that the purpose of strict liability is to insure that the costs of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by the manufacturers and distributors that put such products on the market rather than by the injured persons themselves.
		Strict liability cases based on missing or inadequate warnings can require extensive litigation and expert testimony before reaching their conclusion.
	www.rivkinradler.com /rivkinradler/Publications/newformat/200308centola.shtml (1750 words)

	Strict Liability
		Strict liability, sometimes called absolute liability, is the legal responsibility for damages, or injury, even if the person found strictly liable was not at fault or negligent.
		Owners of dogs and cats, however, are not liable for their pets' trespasses, unless the owners have been negligent or unless strict liability is imposed by statute or ordinance.
		Strict liability for harm resulting from abnormally dangerous conditions and activities developed in the late nineteenth century.
	law.jrank.org /pages/10551/Strict-Liability.html (820 words)

	In Personam and Strict Liability of a Constructive Trustee by Receipt
		However, his or her liability to account as a trustee remains intact in an ambulatory sense in that he or she does not necessarily remain liable, but if they do, the source of the liability is the substantive resultant trust rather than a de novo imposition of a constructive trust.
		It seems, according to the strict liability theory, that such a volunteer's liability is receipt based but is also attributable to his or her continuing liability as a resulting trustee.
		Thus the theoretical basis for the strict liability theory is that the volunteer not in possession is liable as a resulting trustee and this liability is attributable to his or her initial liability as a resultant trustee.
	www.hk-lawyer.com /1999-8/Aug99-64.htm (1533 words)

	DOG BITE LAW - Legal Rights of Dog Bite Victims in the USA
		They may impose liability upon whomever had custody of the dog as well as its owner, apply to non-bite injuries as well as bites, limit their scope to only the victim's medical bills, or provide for additional compensation if the dog previously bit a person.
		While the majority of dog bite statutes impose strict liability based on ownership of the dog, a number combine concepts of negligence, common law strict liability, and/or violations of local law, sometimes causing great confusion even in the courts.
		The traditional exceptions to liability, even where the one-bite rule could be satisfied, were that the victim assumed the risk of injury, or that he provoked the dog.
	www.dogbitelaw.com /PAGES/legal_ri.htm (6078 words)

	STRICT LIABILITY, RISK UTILITY AND TOBACCO
		Strict Liability For centuries a plaintiff in a product liability action could not recover damages unless he demonstrated that the manufacturer had engaged in some culpable conduct.
		Under a newly developing doctrine known as "strict liability," a plaintiff who was unable to prove negligence on the part of the manufacturer could still recover damages as long as the plaintiff could show that his injuries were caused by a product that was defective.
		It was the Restatement of Torts that defined strict liability as making the seller or manufacturer of a product strictly liable to the user even though he may have exercised all possible care in its preparation -- in other words if the product itself turns out to have been defective.
	tobaccodocuments.org /bliley_lor/92354244-4250.html (1367 words)

	Owner's Liability
		The dam owner is liable for the damages resulting from a dam's mis-operation or failure that would result in a sudden release of water downstream.
		In assessing the legal liability for a dam failure, there are two basic theories that are used, strict liability and negligence.
		Factors to be considered in strict liability include the degree of risk, the potential gravity of harm should the risk materialize, the exercise of reasonable care, whether or not the activity is one of common usage, the appropriateness of the activity to the locality, and its value to the community.
	www.mde.state.md.us /Programs/WaterPrograms/Dam_Safety/history/owner_liability.asp (900 words)

	strict
		Strict liability may be differentiated from absolute liability by the availability of the due diligence defence.
		A problem with mens rea is the difficulty it places on enforcement officers to secure the evidence to convince a court beyond a reasonable doubt, or even on a balance of probabilities, that an accused had the necessary intent or knowledge to justify a conviction.
		In strict liability offences, the burden of proof is reversed.
	members.tripod.com /~archetype_design/strict.html (708 words)

	Florida Personal Injury Law: Products Liability
		Even if a defendant's actions are entirely reasonable, strict liability requires the defendant to pay damages if he or she caused the plaintiff's injury.
		Among the reasons for applying strict liability to defective product cases is that manufacturers (often large corporations) are in a better position to incur the costs of the injuries caused by their products than the individuals who are injured.
		One reason that a plaintiff may want to bring a negligence action in lieu of or in addition to a strict liability action is that he or she may have considerable evidence of the defendant's fault.
	www.weblocator.com /attorney/fl/law/piprod.html (1450 words)

	SSRN-Strict Liability versus Negligence in a Market Setting by A. Mitchell Polinsky
		The rule of strict liability shifts the victim's harm to the injurer regardless of the injurer's behavior, while the rule of negligence shifts the burden to the injurer only if the injurer does not take some specified amount of care.
		Most formal analyses of strict liability and negligence have been in a nonmarket context like automobile accidents.1 These studies conclude (or imply) that both rules are efficient when the administering authority has sufficient information to set the negligence standard properly (in each case a defense of contributory negligence may be required).
		According to these analyses, strict liability is efficient because it fully internalizes the harm, and negligence is efficient because the injurer can be induced to take exactly the specified amount of care and this amount can be set efficiently.
	www.ssrn.com /abstract=262047 (773 words)

	Circumstantial Evidence of Product Defect in Strict Liability Cases
		In a strict product liability case, as in any civil case where circumstantial evidence is used in proof of a specific fact, the inferences sought to be drawn must be shown to be reasonably probable, without having to resort to either guesswork or speculation.
		What distinguishes the res ipsa case from the use of circumstantial evidence in a strict liability case is that for res ipsa to be applied, the instrumentality must be under the physical control of the defendant at the time of the injury, whereas no such requirement exists in the strict liability case.
		Because the elements of a negligence cause of action are different from that of a strict liability cause of action, many plaintiffs' attorneys choose to submit under a strict liability rather than a negligence theory because of a perceived greater chance of success under a strict liability theory.
	www.mobar.org /journal/1999/sepoct/hack.htm (5382 words)

	Chapter 21, Chapter Overviews, Textbook Activities, Street Law, Social Studies, Glencoe
		Strict liability means that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff regardless of fault.
		Even when strict liability does not apply, the negligence standard still may be used to hold owners of household pets liable for the harm they cause.
		Strict liability for product manufacturers is meant to encourage manufacturers to design safe products, test them before placing them on the market, and provide clear directions and warning labels.
	www.glencoe.com /sec/socialstudies/street_law/textbook_activities/chapter_overviews/chapter21.php (379 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)