Strict Liability

In the law of torts, strict liability torts involve circumstances where a person is liable for another person’s injuries regardless of what precautions were taken. In strict liability torts, liability is imposed on a defendant that is neither negligent nor guilty of any intentional wrongdoing. Strict liability is also known as liability without fault. This kind of tort seeks regulation of activities that are necessary and useful but also create abnormally dangerous risks to others. Examples include transporting hazardous materials, blasting and storing of dangerous substances.

Brief Historical Background

Strict liability tort is somewhat an older tort than say, negligence however, it is not one of the oldest torts. Perhaps part of this reason is due to the fact that fault was not a part of tort law until much later in common law. Many torts need a clear defining line between moral fault and legal fault, whereas strict liability tort does not require such definition as fault does not matter.

One development in the history of strict liability tort is the strict liability model of tort law that was created by Epstein. This model was first stated in 1973. The arguments presented in this model were derived from the history of common law and started with the latter part of the medieval period. It also extended into the late nineteenth century.

Precedent Setting Cases

One very important cases in the history of strict liability is the case of Escola versus Coca Cola Bottling Company that took place in 1944. This case involved an injury that was caused by an exploding bottle of Coca Cola and went as high as the Supreme Court of California.

The ruling in this case was very important in the development of law of product liability in the United States. The plaintiff was a waitress in a restaurant and was putting away some glass bottle of Coca Cola. One of the bottles suddenly exploded in her hand. The injuries she sustained included a deep cut in her hand that was 5 inches and severed blood vessels, muscles and nerves in different parts of her hand.  The cap and the top portion of the bottle remained in her hand while the lower portion fell but did not shatter. Delivery drivers of Coca Cola testified seeing other bottles of Coca Cola break in a similar way. The court ruled in favor of the waitress citing the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which is involved in the duty of care.

Defenses

In the case of strict liability, there are very few defenses that are permitted in court. One of the only defenses of strict liability is the defense of absence of fault. However, keep in mind that in strict liability cases, plaintiffs do not need to prove fault. In the absence of fault defense, the defendant may argue that the plaintiff’s actions caused the defect in a product. If it can be proved that the defendant had knowledge about the defect then the court’s ruling can be that much harsher and punitive damages may even be awarded to the plaintiff.