The Concept Of Strict Liability, Essentials And Cases
Author: LawSphereX
Category: General Law
Published:
Updated:
THE CONCEPT OF STRICT LIABILITY, ESSENTIALS AND
CASES
Mbakire Immaculate, Gitam University, Vizag
ABSTRACT
Strict liability is a legal term which is categorized under tort and sometimes referred to as “no fault” liability. It holds a person responsible for damages or injuries caused by their actions regardless of whether they were at fault or not. The plaintiff does not need to prove fault or negligence in order to receive compensation but rather proof that the actions of the defendant caused them injuries. Strict liability is normally used in cases where there is a possibility of harm; if the defendant possesses anything that is very dangerous, they are automatically strictly liable for any damages caused by their possessions regardless of how careful the defendant protects them from causing harm. Even if a defendant uses safety measures and even labours to post warnings, it all doesn't matter.
In tort law, strict liability does not focus on the defendant's intention, lack of reasonable care or negligence but rather the dangerous activities and whether they caused harm to the plaintiff. It is actually meant to encourage people who engage in dangerous activities to make sure their activities don't hurt anyone. Since they are held responsible regardless of whether they are careful or not, it forces such people to, at all costs, make sure that their activities don't injure anyone hence reducing the problems that would arise.
Introduction
Strict liability can be applied to both criminal law and tort law. In criminal law, it's usually applied to minor offenses like misdemeanors where the defendant is held responsible for the consequences of their actions even the absence of intention or fault. It should be noted that all those who are charged under strict liability must have taken a risk. The origin of strict liability can be traced way back to the late 19th century as industrialisation evolved that came with a lot of activities that would result in accidents and injuries. Strict liability originated from the
1868 English case of Ryland vs Fletcher in which the court ruled that a person is responsible
for any harm caused by something from their land even when they aren't negligent. The court's view is that in case someone brings something that is likely to cause harm if it escapes from their land, they must keep it safe. By putting strict liability in place, the law aims to provide protection to victims, ensure accountability and promote industry safety standards. Strict liability can be categorized into; keeping dangerous animals, product liability and abnormally dangerous activities. Keeping dangerous animals is a risk that can cause harm and the person who possesses such is liable for the damages if such an animal causes damage to a person or even another animal. These can be domesticated animals like sheep, cows etc and those considered wild such as snakes, lions, tigers etc.
Abnormally dangerous acts are activities which are highly risky and can cause harm to a person, chattel or property. These can be emission of poisonous gasses, disposing of hazardous chemical wastes, publicly shooting fireworks etc. When it comes to product liability, manufacturers, distributors and others in the product lineage are held responsible for damages caused by their products. It gives the consumers the legal right to claim compensation in case they are injured by a product with defects. However, no action can be brought against the seller under product liability if the complainant was misusing or altered a product at the time of harm. There is a need to closely examine strict liability in detail and this study aims at pointing out the essentials, importance and cases of strict liability. Essentials of strict liability.
The essentials of strict liability can also be referred to as the elements. (i) Dangerous thing. For a case to be handled on the account of strict liability, there must be a dangerous thing involved. The rule of strict liability includes anything that can cause damage and mischief in case it escapes. Such a thing must not be natural and has been brought by the defendant to his property . It should be noted that the defendant is always aware that what he /she is accumulating is dangerous and can cause harm to the surrounding in case of escapism. The dangerous things considered can be animals both domesticated and wild such as snakes, lions etc, explosives, poisonous gasses etc. a person in possession of such things must by all means make sure that they are intact to protect the surrounding. (ii) Escape.
If the defendant merely possesses the dangerous thing, it doesn't prove liability for anything. The dangerous thing must escape from the defendant’s land to another person’s premises for him/her to be liable under strict liability. (iii) Damage. It is not enough for the dangerous thing to only escape to constitute strict liability. There must be some kind of damage, harm or mischief caused by the escape of the dangerous substance to the victim. If the dangerous thing escapes but doesn't cause harm to anyone, then the defendant can not be charged under strict liability since there are no damages to be liable for. The plaintiff can not win a case under strict liability if he/ she does not suffer any damages even if the dangerous thing escaped from the defendant's land to his/her land. (iv) Unnatural use of land.
Strict liability will only apply in case the defendant himself acquires and keeps anything that is most likely to cause harm or mischief to another person if only it escapes. Unnatural use of land can include storing of large quantities of dangerous substances such as wild animals, explosives and poisonous gasses to the extent that they are not easy for their owner to control. Defenses of strict liability. (i) Act of God. An act of God can also be understood as vis major. It is an event that is beyond human control and intervention. It basically means that humans are not responsible for its happening and can still do nothing to prevent it and in other words it is an inevitable accident. Acts of God can include lightning strikes, storms, landslides, earthquakes, floods and many other natural disasters.
A defendant can therefore use these as a defense and not be liable for any damages even if the victim has suffered harm. A clear example is in the nichols v. marsland case of 1876. (ii) default of the claimant. If the claimant was the one at fault resulting in damage, then the principle of strict liability is invalid. For example if the plaintiff tresspasses into the defendants land and is bitten by a snake reared by the defendant, the defendant is not liable because the plaintiff is the one at fault. This can clearly be understood considering the case of Ponting v. Nokes case where the horse of the plaintiff went off into the defendants land and ate leaves from a poisonous tree causing the horse’s death. Therefore the defendant here is not liable because it is the horse that trespassed to his land. The plaintiff can never win such a case under strict liability if it is his /her fault.
(iii) Act of the third party. This can also be called the act of a stranger. Third party can be anyone other than the plaintiff and the defendant. In case the damages have been caused by a stranger that the defendant has no control over or is not a servant of the defendant, then the principle of strict liability can never apply. Though, in case the act of the third party can be foreseen, then the defendant has to take reasonable care to prevent the occurrence of the incident. The plaintiff can therefore still win a case under strict liability if the damages he suffered were due to an act of a stranger. A case study is the Perry v. Kendricks transport ltd (1956). (iv) Statutory authority. This can be used as a defense when the defendant's actions were authorized by the legislature or government .
However, statutory authority can only be used as a defense if the defendant has not acted negligently, i. e. complied with all applicable procedures and acted within the scope of authority given to them. However, this defense is not a guarantee because the defendant can still be liable if he/she had the ability to prevent the accident. Case studies of strict liability. Below are the famous cases of strict liability discussed in detail to affirm the elements and defenses.
1. Read v. lyons and Co ltd
Facts The plaintiff was an inspector at a factory that was filled with high explosive shells. An explosion occurred in the factory, killed one person and injured the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the company for the damages she suffered.
Issues ● Whether the rule of strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher applied to this case. ● Whether the defendant was liable for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff. Judgment. The court held that the rule of strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher did not apply to this case. The court also held that the plaintiff’s action did not succeed because there was no escape of the dangerous objects from the defendant’s land to the plaintiff's. The court dismissed the appeal and made a decision in favor of the defendant.
2. Miles v. forest rock granite(1918).
Facts. The defendant brought some explosives onto his land in order to blast rocks that had been naturally developing on his land. Due to the blasting, some of the rock fragments flew onto his neighbors land where they hit the plaintiff causing injuries. The claimant filed a case against the defendant under strict liability in Rylands v. Fletcher for the damages suffered. Issues. ● Whether the rule of strict liability under Ryland v. Fletcher applied to this case. ● Whether the defendant was liable for the damages even when the damage was caused by rocks which had been naturally developing on the land. Court decision. The court decided that strict liability according to the Ryland v. Fletcher was present since there had been an escape of dangerous substances which were the explosives in this case.
The court ruled that even though the defendant did not bring the rocks onto his land, he had brought the explosives onto his land by himself and their blasting caused damages to the plaintiff.
3. Nichols v. Marsland (1876).
Facts. The defendant was in possession of a piece of land on which he had constructed artificial lakes by damming natural streams. Unfortunately, abnormal and unforeseeable rainfall occurred causing the lakes to flood beyond the normal levels. This resulted in water flowing downstream causing damage to the plaintiff’s property. This caused the plaintiff to file a case against the defendant seeking compensation for the damages since he argued that the plaintiff’s voluntary water storage created the accident. Issues. ● Whether the defendant is liable for the damage caused by the water escape from his artificial lakes. ● Whether the principle of act of God can be applied to this case to exempt the defendant from being liable for the damages. Outcome.
The court held that the defendant was not liable because the occurrence was beyond his control hence applying the defense of the act of God and wasn’t reasonably foreseeable. Conclusion Strict liability is really important because it encourages people to use safety measures when engaging in dangerous activities. This is because the possessor of dangerous substances is held liable whether he was negligent or not. It therefore protects the public from the consequences of dangerous activities carried out by individuals and further enables those who have suffered damages to be compensated. Strict liability also simplifies court decisions in the cases where it is applied because the court does not have to spend a lot of time deciding whether the defendant was negligent or not.
It should however be noted that strict liability can only be applied in case there is presence of a dangerous thing, and in case that dangerous thing escapes and in case a person suffers injuries as a result of that dangerous thing escaping. This means that in case any of these things is missing, then the principle of strict liability can not apply.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. LAWBHOOMI,
https://lawbhoomi.com/concept-of-strict-liability-in-torts/, ;last visited, April 29th, 2025
2. WIKIPEDIA, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability, last visited, April 30th,
3. CORNELL, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_liability, last visited, April 30th,
4. SHOUSELAW,https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/elements-of-strict-liability/,
last visited, April 26th, 2025
5. LEGALOCK, https://thelegallock.com/case-brief-nichols-v-marsland/, last visited,
April 26th, 2025
6. https://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/miles-v-forest-rock-granite-1918, last visited, April
28th, 2025 7. LEGALMATCH,https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/strict-liability-tortdefenses.html, last visited, April 27th, 2025 8. STUDY.COM,https://study.com/academy/lesson/strict-liability-torts-definition-andexamples.html, last visited, April 28th, 2025
9. COGGLE,https://coggle.it/diagram/YVIjk_M_JNknVE5l/t/rylands-v-fletcher-1896,
last visited, April 28th, 2025