Talk:Strict liability

strict liability you need to know the right understanding of it before you do any thing about law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.94.237 (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is terrible, i just got redirected from no-fault liability to this article! They are different!

This article mistates the law.

Strict liability is avilible in some instances for gross negligence (torts), hiring incompetent or uninsured contractors (corperations), contracting for a nuisance/ultahazardous activity (corporations), and via respondeat superior.

---

The previous text, I belive mistook a different criminal law doctrine for one that is actually applicable in tort and corporations law.

This is the previous text: Strict liability is an attribute of some crimes. Crimes which require no mens rea are considered to be of strict liability. These are offenses in which to do anything wrong is considered blameworthy, regardless of intent. Many traffic offenses are strict liability crimes. Statutory rape is also often considered to be a crime of strict liability.

Reid 05:15, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) Strict liability, simply put, means that there is no mens rea rquired

This section also oversimplifies tort law. There are two catagories for liability - one is for inherently dangerous activities and one is for ultrahazardous activities. Inherently dangerous activities involves a nondelegable duty and ultrahazardous activities involves strict liability. The two concepts are blended into one in this definition.

At present, this is at a level of generality so that, albeit simplified, it relates to many different jurisdictions. The moment you introduce distinctions known only to one jurisdiction, it loses it utility to the other jurisdictions. So, if you introduce this U.S. element, we would have to introduce all our very different rules. It is a bit like the nuclear arms race. David91 07:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I added a new section on what was discussed above - strict liability in criminal law, especially as it applies to traffic and statutory rape offenses. Please let me know on here if I made any mistakes (I'm new!). Thanks in advance : ) --Teh Janitor 08:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Strict liability in contract law

The article gives the impression that strict liability is a concept limited to tort and criminal law. In fact, contract law in many countries, as well as the United Nations Sales Law (CISG) adopts a strict liability standard with certain exceptions. “Contract liability is strict liability.”, to quote the Second Restatements of Contracts.

I believe the article should reflect this. Unfortunately, as I wasn't trained in a strict liability country, I'm not the one to do it, but I do hope that someone more savvy will feel encouraged to do it. Ildottoreverde (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Confusing language removed

I removed the following language:

Statutory rape is another example of a strict liability offence. This prevents defendants from raising defences along the line of 'I did not know he/she was underage.' Again, the prosecutor need only prove that the defendant engaged in the sexual activity. The onus rests on the defendant to demonstrate that he genuinely and reasonably believed that the other party was not underage.

Statutory rape in at least some U.S. jurisdictions is not a "strict liability offence." This is unsourced material, so it's a bit difficult to evaluate whether the verbiage is even true anywhere. At any rate, the sentence beginning with the words "The onus rests on the defendant [ . . . ]" is simply incorrect, and directly contradicts the concept of strict liability. Assuming for the sake of argument that statutory rape is a strict liability crime with respect to the element of whether the defendant believed the other party was underage, then there's nothing for the defendant to prove -- the defendant's belief would be irrelevant, as his/her belief would not be a valid defense.

There is another problem with this verbiage. If we take the view that statutory rape is not a strict liability crime, then (at least in the United States) there is no requirement that the defendant "reasonably" believed what he or she believed. If the jury is convinced that the defendant genuinely believed what he or she says he believed, that is a valid defense -- even if that belief is irrational or unreasonable. This is a very important point. For an application of this rule in the context of tax law, for example, see Cheek v. United States. And the burden of proving the defendant's mens rea is on the prosecution, not on the defense.

The vehicle traffic offense example is a much better example of a strict liability offense in the United States. I made some edits to that example as well. Yours, Famspear 20:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Post-script: As to whether any U.S. jurisdictions do in fact treat statutory rape as a strict liability offense with respect to whether the defendant was aware that the other party was under age, I don't know the answer. And I don't know anything about jurisdictions outside the U.S. either. Yours, Famspear 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced speculation removed

I removed the following section

It should be noted also that the motivation for this principle is partly financial: most defendants against whom this priciple is brought are large corporations who are in a better position to recoup the loss financially than other parties involved. For instance: if a design flaw is found in a vehicle that causes an accident, the auto manufacturer has more funds available to compensate the victims of the crash than does the driver of the vehicle, despite that s/he may also have been negligent in some way. It is expected that the cost of this responsibility to strict liability is incorporated into the organization's cost of doing business and therefore comes to rest on the entire customer base of that organization instead of just the driver of the car, who may not be able to compensate. Similar to the way insurance works, the principle of strict liability acts to distribute the impact of disastrous occurrences.

Not only is this unsoureced, I is very unlikely to be true. Why are "large corparations" responsible for off-setting the cost of a poor individuals misfortune? This contradicts many countries justification for private proporty. Using this rationale, why aren't "large corparations" required to absorb all monatory damages of anything in which they are at least 1% responsible? This is not like insurance policies, as the current text claims, as these are volentary. One chooses to pay into it. The large corperation does not choose to be a part of it, someone just decided that they had plenty of money so they ought to share it.--Tmchk | Talk 09:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

---

I was looking for an answer to the following strict liability issue: if a firm A makes a product B, which then leaves its premises (suppose it can be proved that other products in the same batch are not defective); subsequently B is damaged; it is then bought by C, who is injured by it; is A still liable? if it cannot be determined where the damage occurred, is anyone liable?

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.250.49 (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolute liability should not direct to strict liability

A search for 'absolute liability' gets directed to strict liability it is manifestly erroneous as absolute liability as laid in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) means strict liability without exceptions. Hence there is a need to have a seperate article on absolute liability. LegalEagle (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes == yes, no?

I'm having a hard time understanding these two consecutive sentences:

Under absolute liability, only an actus reus is required.

With strict liability, an actus reus, unintentional or not is all that is required.

Didn't that just say exactly the same thing twice, not making any differentiation between them at all?

Why do I think this article has been edited way too much (often), and too little (well). Shenme (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and made an edit on this point (my first on Wikipedia) because the mistake seemed so glaring. I'm looking for a way to flag the article as in need of the attention of an expert as well. Yndus (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

I've deleted the sentence: ... "Sometimes a contractor hiring a demolition subcontractor that lacks proper insurance. If the subcontractor makes a mistake, the contractor is strictly liable for any damage that occurs." ... because it's wrong! See Norwich City Council v Harvey. Arrivisto (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Cyclist - Car section

Should the Cyclist - Car section be expanded to include that Denmark, Germany and France also have similar laws:

https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/blog/road-injury/what-drivers-and-cyclists-should-consider/#:~:text=Automatic%20liability%3A%20Drivers%20are%20responsible,responsible%20for%20collisions%20with%20cyclists. 112.213.190.29 (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)