Also known as: strictly liable · strict liability in tort · strict liability · absolute liability
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Liability imposed without regard to the defendant's fault or negligence when the defendant engages in certain activities or sells certain products. The rule attaches once the activity qualifies as abnormally dangerous or the product reaches the user in a defective condition, and it shifts the loss to the party who chose to introduce the risk.
Sofia Stern remained outside repairing equipment after receiving notice of scheduled crop dusting. Wind shifted the pesticide spray onto her property and caused injury. Even though Sofia stayed outside despite the warning, the operator remains strictly liable because contributory negligence does not defeat recovery for harm from an abnormally dangerous activity.
A consumer purchased a pressure cooker whose lid locking mechanism was defective. The cooker exploded during ordinary use and caused burns. The manufacturer is strictly liable because the product reached the user in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A contractor stored large quantities of explosives on a residential construction site. An accidental detonation damaged neighboring homes. The contractor is strictly liable for the harm even though all reasonable safety precautions were taken.
Stella Shapiro approached a bison enclosure despite posted warnings and leaned over the fence. A bison gored her. Her knowing and unreasonable exposure to the risk of a wild animal defeats the possessor's strict liability.
Sierra Santos entered a restricted area containing dangerous animals after reading explicit warning signs. She was injured when an animal escaped its enclosure. Her voluntary assumption of the known risk defeats the possessor's strict liability.
Sean Steele ignored posted warnings and walked directly through an area where Summit Bank conducted blasting operations. Flying debris injured him. His knowing and unreasonable exposure to the risk of the abnormally dangerous activity defeats strict liability.
Contributory negligence 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 complete defense to the possessor's strict liability.
A possessor is strictly liable for harm caused by wild animals kept on the land unless the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjects himself to the risk.
A plaintiff's knowing and unreasonable assumption of the risk defeats the defendant's strict liability for harm from the activity.
…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…