Strict Liability
Strict liability imposes liability without fault for abnormally dangerous activities and defective products, regardless of the defendant's care.
Overview
Strict liability is a doctrine that holds defendants liable for harm caused by their conduct regardless of fault or intent. Unlike negligence, which requires proof that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care, strict liability focuses on the nature of the activity or product rather than the defendant's behavior.
The doctrine originated in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), where the House of Lords held that a person who brings something onto their land that is likely to cause mischief if it escapes is liable for all damage caused by the escape, regardless of precautions taken. American courts adopted and refined this principle through the Restatement of Torts, which identifies abnormally dangerous activities as those that create a foreseeable and highly significant risk of harm that cannot be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care.
Factors for determining whether an activity is abnormally dangerous include: the degree of risk of harm, the likelihood that the harm will be great, the inability to eliminate the risk by reasonable care, the extent to which the activity is not common, the inappropriateness of the location, and the value of the activity to the community.
Strict liability is most prominent in products liability, where manufacturers and sellers are held liable for defective products that cause injury, regardless of fault. The seminal case Greenman v. Yuba Power Products established strict products liability in tort, later codified in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A.
Key Takeaway
Strict liability eliminates the need to prove fault — the plaintiff need only show the defendant engaged in the activity or sold the product, and that it caused harm.
Exam Tip
When you see a question involving blasting, storing hazardous materials, keeping wild animals, or defective products, think strict liability first. Remember: contributory negligence is NOT a defense, but assumption of risk may be.
Landmark Cases (9)
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between strict liability and negligence?
In negligence, the plaintiff must prove the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care. In strict liability, the defendant is liable regardless of how careful they were — the focus is on the nature of the activity or product, not the defendant's conduct.
What activities trigger strict liability?
Abnormally dangerous activities (blasting, storing toxic chemicals, keeping wild animals), defective products (manufacturing defects, design defects, failure to warn), and in some jurisdictions, ultrahazardous activities that cannot be made safe regardless of precautions.
What defenses are available in strict liability cases?
Assumption of risk is a valid defense. Contributory negligence generally is NOT a defense to strict liability. Product misuse, alteration after sale, and comparative fault (in comparative fault jurisdictions) may reduce or eliminate liability.
What is Rylands v. Fletcher and why does it matter?
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) established that a person who brings something likely to cause harm onto their land is strictly liable if it escapes and causes damage. It is the foundational case for strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities.
Master Strict Liability with Briefly
AI-powered tools built for law students. Generate case briefs, practice cold calls, and ace your torts exam.