Also known as: strict liability in tort · strict liability doctrine in tort · strict liability · absolute liability
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An absolute form of tort liability imposed without regard to the defendant's fault or negligence when the defendant engages in certain inherently dangerous activities or keeps certain animals. The doctrine places the loss on the party who chose to introduce the risk rather than on the innocent victim. Contributory negligence does not bar recovery except when the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjects himself to the specific risk.
Diego Duarte kept a bison herd on his farm for a roadside attraction. Neighbor Delilah Duran ignored posted warnings and leaned over the fence to photograph a calf. A bison gored her. Duran sued Duarte under strict liability. Even if Duran was negligent in approaching the enclosure, her contributory negligence does not defeat recovery.
Dwight Dorsey, a private citizen, sued a local blog after it published false statements accusing him of professional misconduct on a matter of public concern. The blog had not verified the claims. Dorsey sought to hold the publisher strictly liable. The court required proof of at least negligence because strict liability is unavailable in this setting.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Devon Drake operated a food processing plant that received a contaminated additive from a supplier. The finished goods contained a banned preservative. State law imposed liability solely on the presence of the substance with no mens rea requirement and classified the offense as a felony. Because absolute liability attached to a material element, the offense was reclassified as a violation rather than a felony.
Deborah Dunn entered a fenced area marked with warnings that wild animals were present. A bison charged and injured her. Dunn sued the possessor under strict liability for wild animals. Because she knowingly and unreasonably subjected herself to the risk of harm from the animal, her contributory negligence defeats the claim.
David Dawson paid to enter an exotic-animal petting zoo and signed a waiver acknowledging the risk of bites. A camel bit him. Dawson sued the zoo owner under strict liability. His assumption of the risk of harm from the animal bars recovery.
Duffy Construction performed blasting operations near a residential area. Resident Dover Bank was warned to stay indoors during blasts but remained outside to repair his roof. Flying debris injured him. Bank sued under strict liability for the abnormally dangerous activity. His knowing and unreasonable exposure to the risk defeats the claim.
No. The plaintiff's ordinary contributory negligence is not a defense. Recovery is barred only when the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjects himself to the specific risk created by the activity.
Supporting sources
Assumption of the risk defeats the claim when the plaintiff voluntarily encounters the known danger posed by the animal. Mere presence near the animal without knowledge of the specific risk is insufficient.
Supporting sources
A possessor of a wild animal is strictly liable for harm even with utmost care. Liability for a domestic animal requires knowledge that the animal has dangerous propensities abnormal to its class.
Supporting sources
No. Strict liability is constitutionally forbidden. The plaintiff must prove at least negligence, and presumed or punitive damages require actual malice.
Supporting sources
…in compensating private individuals for injury to reputation, yet shields the press and broadcast media from the rigors of strict liability for defamation. At the same time, we do not hold that the Constitution requires that the States apply the New York Times rule in all cases. We hold only that so long as they do not…