Also known as: absolute liability · strict liability
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine under which a defendant may be convicted of a crime based solely on the commission of a prohibited act without proof of any culpable mental state for a material element of the offense.
Audrey Ashton keeps an abnormally dangerous substance on her land. A neighbor's contributory negligence contributes to the escape and resulting harm. State prosecutors charge her under an absolute liability statute. The fact that the neighbor contributed does not prevent conviction because absolute liability admits no such defense.
Adrian Aguilar supplies false information to a reporter about a public official. Prosecutors charge him with defamation. Because the matter concerns public concern, the charge requires proof of at least negligence rather than permitting pure strict liability.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Aaron Adams runs a food processing plant that unknowingly incorporates a banned preservative supplied by a vendor. The state charges him under a statute imposing absolute liability for the presence of the substance. Under the applicable code provision the offense is reclassified as a violation rather than a felony because conviction rests solely on the absolute liability element.
Alice Atkins keeps a wild animal on her property. A trespasser knowingly and unreasonably approaches the enclosure and is injured. The state brings an absolute liability action for the resulting harm. The trespasser's knowing and unreasonable approach supplies a defense that bars recovery under the absolute liability rule.
Anthony Arnold maintains a dangerous domestic animal. A neighbor who assumes the risk of injury is harmed. Prosecutors pursue an absolute liability claim. The neighbor's assumption of risk defeats the strict liability claim and prevents recovery.
Avalon Pharmaceuticals conducts an abnormally dangerous manufacturing process. A nearby resident knowingly and unreasonably exposes himself to the risk and suffers harm. Prosecutors charge the company under an absolute liability statute but the resident's conduct supplies a complete defense.
The offense is reclassified as a violation rather than retaining its original felony or misdemeanor status. This follows directly from the rule that any conviction resting solely on the absolute liability element must be treated as a violation.
Yes. When the plaintiff or victim knowingly and unreasonably subjects himself to the risk of harm from the animal, that conduct constitutes a defense to the strict or absolute liability claim.
No, except when the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably subjects himself to the specific risk created by the activity. Mere contributory negligence does not bar liability or conviction.
…intended to eliminate the element of intent. But the statute is not one that regulates inherently dangerous activity or imposes strict liability for the protection of public health or safety. Rather, it is a codification of common-law crimes that traditionally required mens rea. The contention that an injury can amount to a crime…