Also known as: strictly liable · absolute liability
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Liability imposed without regard to fault or negligence. The defendant answers for harm caused by specified conduct or conditions even when all reasonable care was exercised.
Sierra Santos kept a tiger on her ranch for a roadside attraction. Steven Silva ignored posted warnings and climbed the fence to take a closer photograph. The tiger mauled Silva. Even though Silva's decision to approach the enclosure was careless, Santos remains strictly liable for the injuries under the rule that contributory negligence does not defeat recovery for harm from a wild animal.
Solomon Silver, a private citizen, posted an online article accusing Serena Soto of professional misconduct in a matter of public concern. Soto sued Silver for defamation. Because Soto is a private plaintiff on a matter of public concern, she must prove at least negligence. Strict liability is unavailable and presumed or punitive damages require proof of actual malice.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Southland Foods purchased a bulk additive from a supplier whose label falsely certified the absence of a banned preservative. The finished food products contained trace amounts of the preservative. Under the statute imposing absolute liability on any operator whose goods contain the substance, the offense constitutes only a violation rather than a felony.
Sterling Dynamics kept a bison known for aggressive behavior in a roadside pen. Sean Steele, aware of the animal's history and the posted warnings, leaned far over the fence to feed it. The bison gored Steele. Because Steele knowingly and unreasonably subjected himself to the risk that the abnormally dangerous domestic animal would cause harm, his contributory negligence defeats the strict-liability claim.
Spectrum Financial maintained a guard dog with known dangerous propensities on its secured property. Sarah Sullivan, a visitor who had been warned about the dog, voluntarily entered the restricted area to retrieve a dropped item. The dog bit her. Sullivan's assumption of the risk of harm from the animal provides a complete defense to the possessor's strict liability.
Solstice Ventures conducted blasting operations on its construction site. Serena Soto, fully aware of the posted schedule and the inherent risks, remained on her adjacent property to photograph the explosions. Flying debris injured Soto. Because Soto knowingly and unreasonably subjected herself to the risk of harm from the abnormally dangerous activity, her contributory negligence defeats the strict-liability claim.
Contributory negligence is ordinarily not a defense. It becomes a defense only when the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjects himself to the specific risk created by the animal or activity.
Supporting sources
No. The First Amendment forbids strict liability. The plaintiff must prove at least negligence and may recover presumed or punitive damages only upon proof of actual malice.
Supporting sources
The offense is reduced to a violation. The Code reclassifies the conviction because absolute liability was imposed on a material element without any culpability requirement.
Supporting sources
Assumption of the risk is a complete defense whenever the plaintiff voluntarily encounters the known danger posed by the animal, regardless of whether the conduct was also contributorily negligent.
Supporting sources
…today it bears not on jurisdiction but on the possible desirability of imposing substantive principles of tort law such as strict liability. [^maj-12]: As we have noted, petitioners earn no direct revenues from these service centers. See supra , at 289. [^maj-13]: In fact, a courtroom just across the state line from a…