Also known as: strictly · strict liability · strict scrutiny
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
Rigid or exacting in application.
Absolute, requiring no showing of fault or deviation from a prescribed standard.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Rigid or exacting in application.
Solomon Silver stopped making mortgage payments on his home. The lender invoked strict foreclosure under the mortgage terms. The court transferred title directly to the lender without a sale, cutting off Silver's equity of redemption.
Sabrina Shah, a resident of State A, sued a company in State B for injuries from a product sold there. The court exercised jurisdiction because the company's contacts satisfied due process even though it lacked strict territorial presence in State B.
Absolute, requiring no showing of fault or deviation from a prescribed standard.
Simone Sanders knowingly entered a fenced area containing an abnormally dangerous dog despite posted warnings. When the dog bit her, the court held her contributory negligence defeated the owner's strict liability.
Stephen Shaw voluntarily approached a neighbor's tiger enclosure to photograph the animal despite clear danger signs. When injured, the court applied assumption of the risk as a complete defense to the owner's strict liability.
Sofia Stern sought a variance after strict application of the zoning ordinance prevented her from building a needed garage on her narrow lot. The board granted relief because literal compliance would cause unnecessary hardship.
Sylvia Santos contracted to sell land requiring only insurable title. The buyer accepted a title a reputable insurer would cover at standard rates even though it fell short of full marketability standards.
Strict foreclosure transfers title directly to the mortgagee without a sale or public auction. It is available only in limited jurisdictions and cuts off the mortgagor's equity of redemption immediately.
No. The Due Process Clause now focuses on minimum contacts, relatedness, and fairness rather than strict territorial presence within the forum.
The plaintiff need only prove the defendant's conduct or the animal's dangerous propensity caused harm. No showing of fault or negligence is required.
The defense applies when the plaintiff voluntarily encounters the known danger posed by the animal. The assumption must be knowing and unreasonable to defeat liability.
…any of the principal briefs in this case or in Doe v. Bolton , post , p. 179, it represents the apex of the development of strict ethical concepts in medicine, and its influence endures to this day. Why did not the authority of Hippocrates dissuade abortion practice in his time and that of Rome? The late Dr. Edelstein…