In most personal injury cases, the injured person (the plaintiff) is required to prove that the person at fault for for the accident acted in an intentional or negligent manner.
For example, in a car accident case, an injured driver or passenger must offer evidence to establish that the other driver breached the applicable standard of care by speeding, running a red light or engaging in similar conduct that makes him or her legally liable for the injuries sustained as a result of the accident. (Learn more about negligence, which is the common standard of liability in personal injury cases.)
There is a class of cases, however, in which the need to prove that the responsible party violated the standard of care—to show that they they did (or failed to do) something that amounted to negligence, in other words—is not a necessary element of the claim. In these cases, the law has deemed that there is "strict liability" for the injuries, i.e., that the person who caused the injuries is liable regardless of fault.
Strict Liability for Inherently Dangerous Actions
Typically, strict liability applies to cases where the responsible party's actions are inherently dangerous and unreasonable. Traditional examples include:
- the use of explosive chemicals, and
- the transportation of toxic substances.
If someone is injured as a result of a chemical explosion or exposure to a toxic substance, the courts may apply the strict liability doctrine when it is shown that the chemical or substance involved was under the responsible party's control.
Strict Liability and Violation of Laws
Strict liability may also be applied in car accident cases where the responsible party has engaged in conduct that violates the traffic laws. For example, if the responsible party was cited for a traffic violation at the accident scene, the citation alone might be offered as proof of liability (or so-called "negligence per se") without the injured party having to independently establish that the other driver's conduct was wrongful.
Strict Product Liability
Product liability is another area of the law to which the strict liability doctrine often applies. When suing a manufacturer for injuries caused by a product, the injured party is often only required to prove that the product was defective and that injuries resulted from that defect. There is usually no need to establish that the defect was caused negligently or intentionally. Learn more about products liabiity.
Plaintiffs' Shared Fault and Strict Liability
As is the case with claims where fault of some sort is a required element of proof, strict liability claims do not excuse any conduct on the part of the injured party that causes or contributes to the injuries. For example, a person injured by a defective product will not usually be able to recover for those injuries if it can be shown that the product was altered or misused.
Similarly, the person injured by a speeding driver will have his recovery limited or denied by proof that he too was driving recklessly at the time of the accident.
Learn more about contributory negligence and shared fault for an accident.
Establishing Strict Liability Isn't Enough
Once strict liability is established, the injured party will still need to show that:
- the responsible party's act caused some sort of harm and
- the harm caused by this act is of the type that merits an award of damages.
So, just like in any other personal injury case, the injured party will need to convince the jury that the defective product or the speeding car caused injuries for which monetary compensation (personal injury damages) should be awarded. It is possible, therefore, that a strictly liable party may still avoid responsibility for the injuries if it can be shown that there is a lack of evidence to support the elements of causation and damages. An experienced personal injury lawyer will know how to put your best case together.