The document is a project report on strict liability. It begins with an acknowledgment and table of contents. It then discusses what strict liability is, explaining that it imposes legal responsibility for damages that occur regardless of fault or intent. The document outlines some key areas where strict liability applies, including products liability, ultrahazardous activities, care of animals, and certain statutory offenses. It also discusses why strict liability exists, noting that it aims to promote safety and accountability. The document further explores types of strict liability, covering liability for injuries caused by animals and liability for abnormally dangerous activities.
The document is a project report on strict liability. It begins with an acknowledgment and table of contents. It then discusses what strict liability is, explaining that it imposes legal responsibility for damages that occur regardless of fault or intent. The document outlines some key areas where strict liability applies, including products liability, ultrahazardous activities, care of animals, and certain statutory offenses. It also discusses why strict liability exists, noting that it aims to promote safety and accountability. The document further explores types of strict liability, covering liability for injuries caused by animals and liability for abnormally dangerous activities.
The document is a project report on strict liability. It begins with an acknowledgment and table of contents. It then discusses what strict liability is, explaining that it imposes legal responsibility for damages that occur regardless of fault or intent. The document outlines some key areas where strict liability applies, including products liability, ultrahazardous activities, care of animals, and certain statutory offenses. It also discusses why strict liability exists, noting that it aims to promote safety and accountability. The document further explores types of strict liability, covering liability for injuries caused by animals and liability for abnormally dangerous activities.
The document is a project report on strict liability. It begins with an acknowledgment and table of contents. It then discusses what strict liability is, explaining that it imposes legal responsibility for damages that occur regardless of fault or intent. The document outlines some key areas where strict liability applies, including products liability, ultrahazardous activities, care of animals, and certain statutory offenses. It also discusses why strict liability exists, noting that it aims to promote safety and accountability. The document further explores types of strict liability, covering liability for injuries caused by animals and liability for abnormally dangerous activities.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 13
A
PROJECT REPORT ON STRICT LIABILITY
Submitted By-
Name: Suvid Chaturvedi
st Class: 1 Semester, 5 Year B.A., LL.B. (Hons.)
Hall Ticket No. : 2012112
AKNOWLEDGEMENT
I,shivam pandey would like to express my sincere thanks to the lecturer
of law of contract in Damodaram Sanjiviah National Law University foe his support and guidance without whom this project could not have been completed.I,also take the opportunity to thank my parents for providing me the necessary support in making this project a successful one.Finally,I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the almighty for his countless blessings and the intellectual strength. CONTENTS:
1. Introduction: 2. What Is 3. Strict Liability?? 4. Why Strict Liability?? 5. Types Of Strict Liability 6. What Is A Strict Liability 7. Cause Of Action?? 8. When Strict Liability Applies? 9. Elements Of Strict Liability 10.Strict Liability Does Not 11.Mean Absolute Liability 12.The Defence Of Reasonable 13.Mistake Of Facts 14.Refrences INTRODUCTION: Strict liability is a rigid legal doctrine that exists within the body of tort law. It makes a person liable or responsible for damages that occur as a result of that party's actions. This responsibility results whether there is fault or intent exercised on the part of the party or not (hence, the rigidity of the doctrine). This segment of tort law imposes legal responsibility on defendants, in certain instances, who are not negligent and conduct no wrong.
The purpose of strict liability is to regulate actions, behaviors, and activities in society that are beneficial and serve a purpose but, by their nature, are unusually dangerous or harmful. Strict liability torts have similar components to negligent torts. Namely, existence of duty, breach of duty, and resulting injury from that breach are identical components between torts. For strict liability, however, there is no further requirement to establish negligence.
In the context of strict liability, it is immaterial whether a defendant took precautionary measures or acted in good faith and without malicious or reckless intentions. The liability, by its very nature, results regardless of any factors.
WHAT IS
STRICT LIABILITY??
Our legal system typically imposes liability for money damages only upon a showing that a person was negligent (i.e., failed to use due care) or somehow intended to bring about an injury or damage to another. There are cases, however, where an actor can be held responsible for an injury even where no negligence or evil intent can be shown. Enter the doctrine of strict liability.
The doctrine of strict liability imposes legal responsibility for injuries sustained by or as a result of an actor's conduct, whether or not the actor used reasonable care and regardless of the actor's state of mind. Strict liability cases are limited to certain narrowly-defined areas of the law, including the following:
products liability ultrahazardous activities care of animals certain statutory offenses
Products liability suits are probably the most familiar strict liability cases. These include claims for injuries resulting from the defective design or manufacture of consumer products. A plaintiff need not show that the manufacturer was negligent in designing or manufacturing the product; a successful plaintiff need only show that the product was in fact defective in design or manufacture, rendering it unreasonably dangerous and the cause of injury.
Strict liability is also imposed upon persons engaged in ultrahazardous activities, such as blasting, oil drilling and other dangerous but beneficial enterprises. If the quarry next door causes damage to your building due to blasting, you need not show they were careless to prevail in a lawsuit.
In most states, owners of domestic animals are typically held strictly liable for any injury or damage caused by such animals. This is especially true in the case of farm animals, which, when they get loose, are capable of causing significant damage to neighboring properties and persons.
Another category of strict liability includes certain statutory offenses for which state of mind and exercise of due care are irrelevant. Something as simple as a speeding violation in your car is a strict liability offense. The Commonwealth need only show that you were going faster than the speed limit; your reasons for doing so and whether you were doing so carefully are not relevant.
The philosophy behind imposition of strict liability is utilitarian: Society has made a determination that it is better to hold persons responsible for certain actions even without a showing of negligence because the benefits derived (such as safety, improved products, accountability, etc.) outweigh the burden placed upon the defendant in a strict liability lawsuit. Especially in the area of consumer product development, strict liability laws have fostered meaningful safety developments which have prevented countless deaths and injuries. Strict liability is not without its cost, however, and the price of consumer goods surely reflects this cost-
WHY STRICT LIABILITY??
Our legal tradition strongly supports the principle that people should not generally be subject to criminal action in the absence of at least some blameworthy mental state, ranging from the deliberate intention to do what they have done, to the negligent failure to take care that their actions are not criminally offensive.
At the same time, however, a corresponding principle recognises that certain kinds of offences – particularly those concerned with public safety and health – should not require that there be proof of any ‘blameworthy’ mental state.
There are at least two good reasons for this. Firstly, because one of the major functions of the criminal law is to deter certain forms of misconduct, and to make it clear that conduct jeopardising public safety and health may be punishable in the absence of any blameworthy mental state, it sends a strong deterrence message. Secondly because, as a practical matter, it would be so extraordinarily difficult to prove that a person actually intended to act so as to jeopardise public safety or health, successful prosecutions would be so unlikely that the law would be meaningless.
One of the most common forms of strict liability offences of this kind are simple motor vehicle laws. These are intended to underpin public safety, and their utility depends upon the absence of a need to prove ‘fault’ when they are contravened.
Civil aviation safety regulations are strict liability offences for essentially the same reasons.
TYPES OF STRICT LIABILITY
From early common law onward, there have been recognized discrete subsets of conduct for which the defendant will be responsible in damages, without regard to due care or fault. This is called “strict liability” or “liability without fault.” This chapter discusses strict liability for damage or injury caused by animals owned or possessed by the defendant, and also strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities.
Strict Liability for Injuries Caused By Animals
[A] Livestock
The original common law rule provided for owner liability without fault for damage done by trespassing livestock. Restatement 504 imposes strict liability for the possessor of trespassing livestock unless (1) the harm is not a foreseeable one; (2) the trespass by animals being “driven” (herded) along the highway is confined to abutting land; or (3) state common law or statute requires the complaining landowner to have erected a fence. [Maguire v. Yanake, 590 P.2d 85 (Idaho 1978).]
[B] Domestic Animals
Keepers of dogs, cats, horses or other domestic animals are liable for injury caused by the animal only where the possessor knew or should have known of the animal's vicious disposition. Courts have rejected the maxim of ‘”every dog gets one bite.” [Carrow v. Haney, 219 S.W. 710 (Mo. Ct. App. 1920).] In many jurisdictions a dog bite statute creates the exclusive remedy for dog bite victims.
[C] Wild Animals
Many jurisdictions have followed the rule of strict liability for owners or keepers of wild animals that cause harm even though the possessor has exercised the utmost care. [See Restatement 507.] [D] Defenses
Some courts have held that the plaintiff's mere contributory negligence does not bar the claim. In comparative negligence jurisdictions, however, fault principles may be used to reduce the amount of the plaintiff's award. The plaintiff's assumption of the risk is a defense.
Strict Liability for Abnormally Dangerous Activities
[A] Introduction
Some activities create such grave risks that the defendant may be strictly liable even when he has exercised the utmost care. In such an action, the plaintiff must show that as to the activity (1) the risk of great harm should defendant's safety efforts fail; (2) the impossibility of defendant's elimination of the risk of harm; and (3) injury or harm caused thereby.
Unlike liability for nuisance and trespass, discussed in Chapter 18: (1) the liability described herein does not require a showing that the defendant acted intentionally, negligently or recklessly; and (2) while nuisance and trespass protect an interest in land, abnormally dangerous activities liability is not so confined.
The theory of liability was advanced in British decision in Rylands v. Fletcher, L.R. 1 Ex. 265 (1866), an action against defendant mill owners who had built a large reservoir for the collection of water. When the reservoir's barriers failed, the impounded water flooded into the plaintiff's working mine shafts. The Exchequer Chamber found liability, imposing strict liability upon one who introduces a hazardous condition upon his property that, upon its escape, causes harm to another. The House of Lords added the gloss that liability should attach only if the activity was not typical (“non-natural”) to the land.
The adoption by United States courts of the tenets of Rylands v. Fletcher has moved beyond its original context of impounded water to find application in cases involving activities ranging from the storage of explosives, fumigation, crop dusting, the storage of flammable liquids, pile driving, and the maintenance of a hazardous waste site.
[B] Restatement §§ 519–520
Restatement 519 states the general principle for liability, and 520 provides several evaluative factors. Section 519 provides for strict liability for one “who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity” causing harm to persons or property even if he “has exercised the utmost care to prevent the harm.” Section 520 suggests evaluative factors to assist in determining if an activity should be termed abnormally dangerous, and includes (1) the degree of risk of harm; (2) the magnitude of that harm; (3) the inevitability of some risk irrespective of precautionary measures that might be taken; (4) the ordinary or unusual nature of the activity; and (5) the activity's value to the community in comparison to the risk of harm created by its presence. Restatement 520(d) requires consideration of whether the activity is “a matter of common usage.” Comment i thereto suggests that while the use of the automobile is so commonplace as to make its operation one of common usage, the use of a far larger tank might be abnormally dangerous. The locality of the activity is also relevant, and comment j to 520 points out that the storage of explosives in the middle of the desert might be evaluated differently than would such storage in an urban area.
[1] Danger Unavoidable Even with the Exercise of Due Care
Liability will not lie unless plaintiff shows that the risk involved cannot be eliminated through defendant's exercise of reasonable care. Illustrative is Edwards v. Post Transportation Co., 279 Cal. Rptr. 231 (Cal. App. Ct. 1991), a suit by an employee against the delivery company that pumped sulfuric acid into the wrong storage tank at the manufacturer's waste treatment facility. The resultant toxic gases injured plaintiff, but his claim was disallowed on the grounds that the risk could have been “eliminated through the exercise of reasonable care.”
[2] Requirement of an Activity Under Defendant's Control
The activity must have been in the control of the defendant at the time of plaintiff's injury. Thus in one suit brought against a manufacturer of chemicals for injuries sustained by a truck driver who inhaled the product when his truck ran over a drum of the product that fell from another truck, liability was denied on the grounds that the manufacturer exercised no control over the independent contractor transporting the drums. [Hawkins v. Evans Cooperage Co., 766 F.2d 904 (5th Cir. 1985).]
Claimants must demonstrate the defendant's engagement in the “activity”. In Heinrich v.
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 532 F. Supp. 1348 (D. Md. 1982), a tire company's employee an action against a chemical supplier for chemical exposure injuries, court held that action would not lie absent a showing that the defendant had at least “the right or duty to control, if not actual control over, the activity causing the harm.”
Many plaintiffs have brought causes of action against product manufacturers. In the majority of these cases no liability has been found, as the manufacturer's “activity” ceased at the time of its initial distribution of the product to intermediaries. [Cavan v. General Motors Corp., 571 P.2d 1249 (Or.1977).]
[3] Type of Hazard Contemplated
Subpart (2) of Restatement 519 limits the applicability of the strict liability remedy to injuries involving “the kind of harm, the possibility of which makes the activity abnormally dangerous.” [Foster v. Preston Mill Co., 268 P.2d 645, 647 (Wash. 1954).]
[C] Application of the Doctrine
The determination of whether strict liability is justified is explicitly “an adjustment of conflicting interests, which interests include, without limitation, the interest of the person conducting the activity, the interests of the community in which the activity is conducted in the continuation of that activity, and the interests of the injured claimant in receiving compensation for any injury suffered thereby.” [Loe v. Lenhardt, 362 P.2d 312 (Or. 1961).] Restatement 519- 520 provide such a balancing test for the determination of whether an activity is to be viewed as abnormally dangerous.
In representative suits, liability has been for: blasting or dangerous storage of explosives or flammable products [Yommer v. McKenzie, 257 A.2d 138 (Md. 1969)]; dangerous release and application [Langan v. Valicopters, Inc., 567 P.2d 218 (Wash. 1977)]; dangerous transportation [Siegler v. Kuhlman, 502 P.2d 1181 (Wash. 1972)]; and dangerous transmission [Ferguson v. Northern States Power Co., 239 N.W.2d 190 (Minn. 1976)].
[D] Defenses
Under the traditional view accepted by the Restatement in 523, only the plaintiff's assumption of the risk is a defense to a strict liability action based on an abnormally dangerous activity; the fact that the plaintiff may have failed to use reasonable care for her own protection is irrelevant.
WHAT IS A STRICT LIABILITY
CAUSE OF ACTION??
Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes a person or company responsible for their actions or products which cause damages regardless of any negligence or fault on their part. A plaintiff filing a personal injury lawsuit under a strict liability law does not need to show intentional or negligent conduct, only that the defendant's action triggered strict liability and that the plaintiff suffered a harm. Whether or not a tort action is considered strict liability and what damages are appropriate will depend on your state law, so consult an experienced personal injury attorneyprior to filing a strict liability tort.
WHEN STRICT LIABILITY APPLIES?
Strict liability often applies when people engage in inherently dangerous activities. There are many factors a court will use to determine whether or not an activity is inherently dangerous. Some activities, such as transportation or use of heavy explosives or dangerous chemicals, are inherently dangerous in any circumstance. Other activities may be dangerous, but not inherently dangerous enough to trigger strict liability. For those activities the law will look at the possible level of harm the activity could cause, whether or not such an activity is common or expected in the place it is being conducted, and whether or not the activity is necessary. For example, a construction company using some sort of blasting technique on a job may not be inherently dangerous in an unpopulated area if adequate safety precautions are met, but can be inherently dangerous if done in a crowded city. If a construction company is conducting blasting activities in a crowded city, and if the blasting causes harm to someone the company can be liable for any personal injuries under a strict liability tort theory. It does not matter if the blasting was properly monitored in order to ensure the safest possible technique because if an activity is inherently dangerous considering the place and time it is conducted and a plaintiff suffers an injury as a result of that conduct, then a strict liability action negates any defense. Inherently dangerous activities can include acts by the defendant, transportation of various materials or explosives, or keeping dangerous animals that can cause harm to others.
Strict liability also may apply in the case of certain manufactured products. In strict product liability, anyone who is involved in the manufacture or sale of the product can be held responsible if it was defective and someone was injured. There is no need to prove negligence in a product liability claim. A plaintiff must show that they did not tamper with or misuse the product, but that the product was manufactured and sold in a condition that the ordinary and expected use of it resulted in harm to them. The theory of strict liability also comes up occasionally in criminal and traffic cases. The same general principles apply: an act plus a harm, regardless of intent, equals liability. Speeding is a good example of a strict liability offense. Statutes allow for drivers to be ticketed and punished for the strict liability offense of speeding, even when the driver was merely reckless about monitoring his own speed.
ELEMENTS OF STRICT LIABILITY
A plaintiff in a civil cause of action must generally show three things to establish a strict liability offense. The first is that a defendant (person or company) did something that was inherently dangerous and unreasonable under the circumstances. The plaintiff must then show that the inherently dangerous act caused something bad to happen to the plaintiff. Finally, the plaintiff must show they actually suffered harm as a result of their injury. If a plaintiff cannot show an actual harm, such as a physical injury, they may not be able to make their strict liability claim.
Once a plaintiff proves a strict liability personal injury claim, a defendant is pretty much on the hook for the damages, regardless of their disclaimers. Disclaimers and waivers of liability for products are often invalidated by courts as against public policy (courts should not condone the manufacture and distribution of defective products) and warranties are typically limited so that manufacturers and retailers are held responsible for personal injuries caused by the use of the product.
STRICT LIABILITY DOES NOT
MEAN ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
Beyond the requirement that a court must be satisfied that all of the physical elements of a strict liability offence have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, there are several other protections available under the Criminal Code Act to prevent what might result in, or appear to involve, the unfair application of the law.
Significantly, there will be no criminal liability at all in the following circumstances, which may frequently arise in connection with aviation-related activities:
The physical element was brought about by the occurrence of some external event (including the conduct of another person) over which the person charged with the offence had no control and could not reasonably have been expected to guard against.
The conduct constituting the physical element was carried out in response to circumstances of sudden or extraordinary emergency, in which that conduct was a reasonable response to the emergency and there was no other lawful response reasonably available at the time.
Other circumstances involving external factors that will eliminate criminal liability are set out in Division 10 of the Criminal Code Act. THE DEFENCE OF REASONABLE
MISTAKE OF FACTS
The absence of a requirement to prove fault, does not mean that there is no defence to an offence of strict liability – even if the physical elements have been proven. Section 9.2 of the Criminal Code Act expressly provides that a person is not criminally liable for a strict liability offence if:
at or before the time of the conduct constituting the physical element, the person was under a mistaken but reasonable belief that certain facts existed
had those facts existed as the person believed they did, the conduct would not have constituted an offence.
Using the example of low flying in contravention of CAR 157, if the pilot were to have flown below 1,000 feet over one of the areas specified in the regulation because he or she simply neglected do the things a pilot should responsibly do in order to ensure he or she was flying at the correct altitude, that would not be a defence to the conduct. However, if:
the pilot took into account all of the factors a pilot would normally consider in determining the aircraft’s height above the ground (including, amongst other things, reference to the altimeter)
the altimeter incorrectly displayed the altitude as something greater than 1,000 feet (over flat terrain the pilot knew to be at sea level)
the pilot had (a) no reason to believe the altimeter was not functioning correctly; and (b) no other reason to believe he or she was actually flying below 1,000 feet, then the pilot would almost certainly be in a position to avoid criminal liability for the offence on the basis of the defence of ‘reasonable mistake of fact’.
There are sound and sensible reasons why many provisions of the civil aviation legislation are (and have long been) offences of strict liability. Properly understood, it should be clear that strict liability effectively ensures that the interests of safety are secured and the rights of those governed by the regulations are protected. REFRENCES:
