Also known as: strict joint and several liability · joint and several strict liability · joint and several liability · strict liability
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A liability regime that imposes responsibility without regard to fault.
A liability regime that imposes responsibility without regard to fault.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A liability regime that permits any defendant to be held accountable for the entire harm.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A liability regime that permits any defendant to be held accountable for the entire harm.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Stella Shapiro keeps a tiger on her rural property for private exhibition. Scott Summers climbs the fence to photograph the animal despite posted warnings and is mauled. Summers's decision to enter the enclosure constitutes contributory negligence, yet the possessor's strict liability for the abnormally dangerous animal remains intact and Summers recovers full damages.
Spencer Silver enters an enclosure housing an abnormally dangerous domestic animal after being warned of its aggressive tendencies. The animal attacks him. Silver's knowing and unreasonable exposure to the risk supplies a complete defense to the possessor's strict liability.
Sylvia Santos voluntarily assists in training a wild animal kept by a neighbor and signs a release acknowledging the inherent dangers. When the animal injures her, Santos's assumption of the risk defeats the strict-liability claim against the possessor.
Stephen Shaw knowingly stands near an experimental blasting site operated by Sterling Dynamics despite posted warnings and an offer of safe transport away from the area. When debris from the abnormally dangerous activity injures him, his contributory negligence in assuming the risk defeats strict liability.
Scott Summers intentionally crosses onto Sapphire Holdings' posted land to retrieve a lost drone and is bitten by a guard dog the company keeps there. Because Summers is a trespasser, the company owes him no strict liability for the animal's attack.
Contributory negligence does not bar recovery unless the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjects himself to the risk of harm. The defense is unavailable under the general rule for strict liability arising from possession of animals or abnormally dangerous activities.
Supporting sources
Yes. A plaintiff's assumption of the risk of harm from the animal is a complete defense to strict liability, separate from contributory negligence analysis.
Supporting sources
No. A possessor of land owes no strict liability to one who intentionally or negligently trespasses for harm caused by a wild or abnormally dangerous domestic animal kept on the land.
Supporting sources
Stella Shapiro and Scott Summers operate adjoining factories that each release hazardous waste into the same aquifer. A downstream landowner sues both under CERCLA. Even though only Summers's plant caused the bulk of the contamination, Shapiro may be held liable for the entire cleanup cost because the statute imposes joint and several liability.
CERCLA imposes strict, joint, and several liability on potentially responsible parties for response costs once a release or threatened release is shown, without requiring proof of negligence or causation of the precise harm.
Supporting sources
…Thomas, and Alito, JJ., dissenting). Congress could not, for example, expand its authority to impose criminal fines by creating strict liability offenses enforced by the IRS rather than the FBI. But the fact the exaction here is paid like a tax, to the agency that collects taxes—rather than, for example, exacted by Department of…