Strict Liability
Rule
Strict liability imposes liability on a defendant for harm caused by certain activities or conditions regardless of whether the defendant exercised reasonable care. No showing of fault (negligence) is required.
Categories of Strict Liability in Torts
1. Wild and Vicious Animals
- Keepers of wild animals are strictly liable for any harm the animal causes.
- Keepers of domestic animals are strictly liable if they know of the animal’s dangerous propensities.
2. Non-Natural Use of Land (Rylands v. Fletcher)
- Defendant who brings onto land something likely to do mischief if it escapes is liable for all damage that is the natural consequence of its escape (Lord Blackburn’s rule).
- Lord Cairns added: must be a “non-natural” use of land.
- Rejected in many U.S. jurisdictions in favor of the negligence standard (Losee v. Buchanan).
3. Blasting and Concussion Cases
- Many jurisdictions apply strict liability for damage caused by blasting, even where negligence cannot be shown (Spano v. Perini).
4. Abnormally Dangerous Activities
Restatement 2d §520 factors (all to be weighed):
- Existence of a high degree of risk of harm to persons or property;
- Likelihood that the harm will be great;
- Inability to eliminate the risk by exercise of due care;
- Extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage;
- Inappropriateness of the activity to the location;
- Extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by dangerous attributes.
Restatement 3d: removes factors (5) and (6); focuses on foreseeable and highly significant risk even with reasonable care, and not common usage.
Elements
- Defendant engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity (or kept a wild animal, etc.).
- The activity/condition caused plaintiff’s harm.
- Plaintiff suffered actual damages. (No requirement to prove breach/unreasonable conduct.)
Exceptions / Limits
- Proximate cause still required.
- Comparative fault principles may reduce recovery.
- Activity must be abnormally dangerous, not merely hazardous.
Policy
- Corrective justice: one who profits from a dangerous activity should bear its costs.
- Deterrence: creates strong incentive to minimize risk or relocate dangerous activities.
- Loss-spreading: defendant is best positioned to insure and spread losses.
- Reciprocity of risk: activity imposes non-reciprocal risks on neighbors.
Key Cases
- Rylands v. Fletcher — non-natural use of land; water reservoir flooding neighbor’s mine.
- Indiana Harbor Belt RR v. American Cyanamid — Posner declines to apply strict liability to transport of hazardous chemicals; negligence standard adequate.
- Spano v. Perini — blasting causes concussion damage; strict liability applied regardless of direct/indirect harm distinction.