Editorial Note: We earn a commission from partner links on Forbes Advisor. Commissions do not affect our editors' opinions or evaluations.
Strict liability is a legal doctrine that applies to certain crimes, as well as in certain tort cases (claims made to recover compensation after an injury). When strict liability rules apply, defendants can be held responsible for the consequences of their actions regardless of whether they behaved intentionally or negligently.
It is important to understand what strict liability is as well as the circ*mstances when this doctrine applies. This guide explains everything you need to know.
What Is Strict Liability?
Strict liability is also called absolute liability. It is a legal doctrine that says a defendant’s intent doesn’t matter in determining if they should be held accountable for a crime he committed or if they should be made to compensate injured victims in a personal injury claim.
It also does not matter if a defendant acted negligently or carelessly in strict liability cases. Even a prudent person who exercised due care can still be held responsible for consequences when strict liability rules apply.
Strict liability is different from intent crimes, as well as from intentional or negligent torts. While prosecutors or plaintiffs still must prove that defendants committed a crime or a tort, it can be easier to prove a strict liability claim because there’s no need to show what the defendant was thinking or how the defendant’s behavior compares to a reasonably prudent person. All that is necessary is to prove the crime or tort occurred.
Strict Liability in Civil Law
Civil law is an alternative to criminal law. In criminal cases, the state prosecutes someone for wrongdoing while in civil law, individuals use the court system to right wrongs that others committed against them.
Tort law is the largest area of civil law, and it enables those who have been hurt to pursue a claim for compensation from individuals or entities who harmed them.
In many tort or personal injury claims, plaintiffs must prove that a defendant was negligent or acted intentionally. But with strict liability claims, this proof is not required. The specific situations when strict liability rules apply will vary by state, but three of the most common include products liability, animal bites and abnormally dangerous conditions or ultrahazardous activities.
Products Liability
Products liability claims arise when a person was harmed by a defective product. There are a number of legal theories plaintiffs can use to recover compensation from the manufacturer, including negligence that resulted in a design defect, negligent marketing or a failure to warn of dangerous side effects. Strict liability rules also apply to products liability claims in many states.
When the doctrine of strict liability applies, a plaintiff need not show the product manufacturer acted negligently or engaged in wrongdoing. Instead, a person hurt by a defective product can recover compensation by proving:
- The plaintiff used the product as intended
- The product had a defect that caused it to be unreasonably dangerous
- The product caused harm when used as intended
Anyone who is hurt by a dangerous or defective product can pursue a strict liability claim against the manufacturer. This includes the person who bought the product as well as other users of it.
Animal Bites
In some states, animal owners can be held liable if their pet bites someone–regardless of whether the owner behaved negligently or was aware of the animal’s propensity for biting. In most cases, these strict liability rules for animal bites are applied to dog bite cases, but they can help plaintiffs recover whenever a pet causes harm.
Strict liability is an alternative to the “one-bite” rule used in some jurisdictions. When the “one bite” rule applies, animal owners are only held accountable if they have reason to know their pet might bite. This rule became known as the “one-free-bite” rule because owners wouldn’t be held legally liable unless the pet had previously acted aggressively or bit someone.
When strict liability rules apply in animal bite cases, typically victims of a bite must prove
- The victim was not trespassing or breaking the law at the time of the bite
- The victim did not provoke the animal
- The bite occurred and caused harm
If you have been harmed by a biting animal, it is a good idea to talk with an attorney to find out if you live in a one-bite state or if strict liability rules apply.
Abnormally Dangerous Conditions or Ultrahazardous Activities
When activities are extremely dangerous, there’s an extremely high likelihood that someone will get hurt or some property will be damaged. As a result, someone who is inevitably injured by this high-risk activity can generally pursue a claim for compensation without proving negligence. For example, storing explosives in a residential house is so dangerous that injury is almost guaranteed. So, a person who stores explosives which caused harm could be sued under strict liability rules.
In a claim arising from ultrahazardous activities, plaintiffs would need to show:
- The defendant engaged in an inherently dangerous or ultrahazardous activity that caused a high risk of injury
- The plaintiff sustained injuries substantially as a result of the dangerous activity
- Those injuries could have been predicted by the defendant
Strict Liability in Criminal Law
Strict liability also exists outside of civil law. While most crimes require either intent or recklessness as an element of the crime, there are a few strict liability offenses where mental state does not matter.
Statutory rape is one example of a strict liability crime. This offense occurs when a defendant engages in sexual intercourse with a minor. It does not matter if a defendant was aware the victim was a minor or negligent in determining the victim’s age. If sexual conduct occurs with someone under the legal age of consent, the defendant can be charged with a crime under strict liability rules.
Classification Controversy
There is a controversy in the legal field over whether crimes should ever be classified as strict liability crimes. Some scholars believe it is unfair to punish someone for a crime when they neither had bad intentions nor acted carelessly.
However, because strict liability crimes generally have more lenient punishments than those where a defendant acted knowingly, acted purposefully, acted recklessly or acted negligently, some scholars do support the application of this doctrine in criminal cases.
How to Prove Strict Liability Cases
As mentioned, proving strict liability cases can be easier than proving cases involving negligence or intentional wrongdoing. But just because plaintiffs or prosecutors do not need to show purposeful action or negligence doesn’t mean there is no evidence required for a defendant to be convicted or held accountable for damages.
The specific proof required for a defendant to be convicted of a crime or found liable in a personal injury claim varies depending on the type of offense or injury. For example, in a product liability claim, a victim would need to show a defective product harmed them.
An experienced attorney can provide insight into the elements of a strict liability crime or tort that must be proven in order for a plaintiff or prosecutor to prevail.
Defenses to Strict Liability Cases
Defenses to strict liability cases also vary depending on the situation. For example:
- In a dog bite case, the owner can prove the plaintiff was trespassing or provoked the dog into biting
- In a product liability case, the defendant can argue the plaintiff misused the product in a way that caused or contributed to injuries
- In an ultrahazardous activities case, a defendant could argue the plaintiff acted negligently in a way that resulted in injuries
- In a criminal case, the defendant can argue they did not do the crime they are accused of or that the crime did not happen at all
When a defendant seeks to escape liability due to negligence on the part of the plaintiff, different rules can apply.
In some states, called contributory negligence jurisdictions, if a victim is even 1% responsible for injuries, the victim cannot sue. In others, called comparative negligence states, a victim could pursue a claim as long as the defendant was either 50% or 51% responsible for causing harm (depending on the local rules). The victim’s damage award would be reduced based on shared fault. For example, a victim who was 10% responsible for causing injuries would be entitled to receive compensation for 90% of damages.
To read about other personal injury topics check out our guide to libel and slander.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What are common strict liability offenses?
In criminal law, statutory rape and possession offenses are strict liability offenses. Defendants can be convicted of them regardless of whether they acted intentionally or recklessly.
In civil law, products liability cases and animal bite cases are often strict liability claims. A company can be held liable for injuries caused by a defective product regardless of whether the company was negligent. And animal owners can be held liable if their pet bites, regardless of whether they had reason to suspect that would occur.
What is strict liability versus absolute liability?
Strict liability and absolute liability are two different terms used to describe the same legal doctrine. When strict or absolute liability apply, defendants can be held accountable for the consequences of their actions regardless of whether they acted intentionally or knowingly or recklessly or negligently.
What are the essential elements of strict liability?
The elements a plaintiff must prove in a strict liability claim vary depending on the specific offense. For example, in a product liability claim, a plaintiff would need to show a product was defective and harm occurred as a result. In a dog bite case, a plaintiff would need to show they were injured by a bite and were not trespassing and did not provoke the animal.
What is the difference between negligence and strict liability?
In most tort cases, plaintiffs must prove negligence. They must demonstrate the defendant had a duty of care and breached that duty by not exhibiting the same level of care a reasonably prudent person would have. And they must demonstrate they were harmed as a direct result of the defendant’s breach of duty.
In strict liability claims, however, neither negligence nor intent must be proved. The plaintiff only must show that strict liability rules apply and that they were harmed by the defendant. For example, if a defendant engaged in ultrahazardous activities that created an inevitable risk of harm, the plaintiff could recover compensation by showing these activities occurred and caused harm. The plaintiff would not have to prove negligence.
