Also known as: strict tort liabilities · strict liability · strict liability in tort
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Liability imposed without regard to the defendant's fault or negligence for harm caused by abnormally dangerous activities, wild animals, or defective products.
Santiago Sanchez maintains a tiger enclosure on his property for a roadside attraction. Sofia Stern, aware of posted warnings, leans over the fence to photograph a cub and is gored. Even though Sofia voluntarily approached the enclosure, she recovers damages from Santiago under strict tort liability because her contributory negligence does not defeat the claim.
Southland Foods conducts an abnormally dangerous chemical processing activity on its land. Stella Shapiro, a private citizen living nearby, is harmed by escaping fumes even though the company exercised reasonable care. Stella recovers damages from Southland Foods under strict tort liability because fault or negligence is not required.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Stephen Shaw keeps an abnormally dangerous domestic animal on his farm. Serena Soto, knowing the animal's history, enters the enclosure without permission to retrieve a lost item and is injured. Serena's knowing and unreasonable exposure to the risk bars her strict tort liability claim against Stephen.
Spencer Silver operates a wild animal preserve. Stella Shapiro, fully informed of the risks, voluntarily enters a restricted area to feed the animals and suffers a bite. Her assumption of the risk defeats her strict tort liability action against Spencer.
Southland Foods conducts an abnormally dangerous chemical processing activity on its land. Sofia Stern, aware of the dangers, knowingly enters the restricted zone to take photographs and is harmed by escaping fumes. Sofia's contributory negligence in subjecting herself to the known risk defeats her strict tort liability claim.
Sterling Dynamics keeps wild animals on its industrial property. Santiago Sanchez intentionally trespasses onto the land to steal equipment and is attacked by an animal. Sterling Dynamics faces no strict tort liability for the injuries because the plaintiff was a trespasser.
No. The contributory negligence of the plaintiff is not a defense except when the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably subjects himself to the risk of harm from the activity.
The plaintiff's assumption of the risk of harm from the animal is a defense to the strict liability. The same rule applies when the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjects himself to the risk that a wild or abnormally dangerous domestic animal will cause harm.
No. A possessor of land is not subject to strict liability to one who intentionally or negligently trespasses upon the land for harm done by a wild animal or an abnormally dangerous domestic animal kept on the land.
…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…