4.5 Strict Liability

Thus far, we have considered principles of liability that in some sense depend upon the “fault” of the tortfeasor. In intentional torts, the concept of “fault” relates to the deliberate and intentional actions of the defendant that led to harm or injury to the plaintiff. The fault in negligence cases can be seen in the defendant’s failure to meet a certain standard of care. Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds a party legally responsible for certain actions or activities, regardless of their fault. In strict liability cases, the focus is not on whether the defendant acted negligently or intentionally, but rather on whether they engaged in a certain activity that caused harm, even if they took precautions to prevent that harm.

Strict liability cases do not require proving the defendant’s intent or fault. The focus is on the act itself and its consequences. Strict liability often applies to activities or products that are considered inherently dangerous or pose significant risks to the public. Examples include storing hazardous materials, keeping wild animals, and manufacturing certain products.

Hazardous Activities

it has long been held that someone who engages in ultrahazardous (or sometimes, abnormally dangerous) activities is liable for damage that he causes, even though he has taken every possible precaution to avoid harm to someone else. Strict liability often applies to ultrahazardous activities, which are inherently dangerous actions that have the potential to cause significant harm or damage. The concept of strict liability in hazardous activities means that those who engage in such activities can be held legally responsible for any harm that occurs, regardless of their intent or level of care. Examples of such activities include setting explosives, handling toxic materials, operating heavy machinery, blasting operations, storing and transporting hazardous chemicals, and operating power plants.

Animals

Strict liability can apply to cases involving damages caused by animals, particularly those that are considered inherently dangerous or have a propensity for causing harm. Animal owners can be held strictly liable for any injuries or damages their animals cause, regardless of whether the owner was negligent or had knowledge of the animal’s behavior. This can include wild animals, certain breeds of dogs with aggressive tendencies, and animals that are commonly used for their strength or guarding abilities. Unlike negligence cases, where the plaintiff needs to prove that the defendant’s lack of reasonable care led to the harm, strict liability doesn’t require proving negligence. In cases involving dangerous animals, the owner can be held liable for any injuries caused by their animal, even if they took precautions to prevent harm.

Strict Liability for Products

Strict liability may also apply as a legal standard for products, even those that are not ultrahazardous. Strict product liability was initially was created by a California Supreme Court decision in the 1962 case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. In Greenman, the plaintiff had used a home power saw and bench, the Shopsmith, designed and manufactured by the defendant. He was experienced in using power tools and was injured while using the approved lathe attachment to the Shopsmith to fashion a wooden chalice. The case was decided on the premise that Greenman had done nothing wrong in using the machine but that the machine had a defect that was “latent” (not easily discoverable by the consumer). Rather than decide the case based on warranties, or by requiring that Greenman prove how the defendant had been negligent, Justice Traynor found for the plaintiff based on the overall social utility of strict liability in cases of defective products. According to his decision, the purpose of such liability is to ensure that the “cost of injuries resulting from defective products is borne by the manufacturers…rather than by the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves.”

Today, the majority of U.S. states recognize strict liability for defective products, although some states limit strict liability actions to damages for personal injuries rather than property damage. Injured plaintiffs have to prove the product caused the harm but do not have to prove exactly how the manufacturer was careless. Purchasers of the product, as well as injured guests, bystanders, and others with no direct relationship to the product, may sue for damages caused by the product.

The Restatement specifies six requirements all of which must be met for a plaintiff to recover using strict liability for a product that the plaintiff claims is defective:

• The product must be in a defective condition when the defendant sells it.
• The defendant must normally be engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing the product.
• The product must be unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer because of its defective condition.
• The plaintiff must incur physical harm to self or to property by using or consuming the product.
• The defective condition must be the proximate cause of the injury or damage.
• The goods must not have been substantially changed from the time the product was sold to the time the injury was sustained.

For defendants, who can include manufacturers, distributors, processors, assemblers, packagers, bottlers, retailers, and wholesalers, there are a number of defenses that are available, including assumption of risk, product misuse and comparative negligence, commonly known dangers, and the knowledgeable-user defense. We have already seen assumption of risk and comparative negligence in terms of negligence actions; the application of these is similar in products-liability actions.

Under product misuse, a plaintiff who uses a product in an unexpected and unusual way will not recover for injuries caused by such misuse. For example, suppose that someone uses a rotary lawn mower to trim a hedge and that after twenty minutes of such use loses control of the mower because of its weight and suffers serious cuts to his abdomen after dropping it. Here, there would be a defense of product misuse, as well as contributory negligence. Consider the urban (or Internet) legend of Mervin Gratz, who supposedly put his Winnebago on autopilot to go back and make coffee in the kitchen, then recovered millions after his Winnebago turned over and he suffered serious injuries. There are multiple defenses to this alleged action; these would include the defenses of contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and product misuse. (There was never any such case, and certainly no such recovery; it is not known who started this legend, or why.)

Another defense against strict liability as a cause of action is the knowledgeable-user defense. If the parents of obese teenagers bring a lawsuit against McDonald’s, claiming that its fast-food products are defective and that McDonald’s should have warned customers of the adverse health effects of eating its products, a defense based on the knowledgeable user is available. In one case, the court found that the high levels of cholesterol, fat, salt, and sugar in McDonald’s food is well known to users. The court stated, “If consumers know (or reasonably should know) the potential ill health effects of eating at McDonald’s, they cannot blame McDonald’s if they, nonetheless, choose to satiate their appetite with a surfeit of supersized McDonald’s products.” 

Check Your Understanding