Documentation:Torts/Strict liability

TORT LAW
CASEBOOK
Introduction
Dignitary Torts
Defamation • Discrimination • Harassment • Intentional infliction of mental suffering • Intimate partner violence • Invasion of privacy • Trespass to the person
Property Torts
Interference with goods • Interference with land • Non-natural use of land • Private nuisance • Public nuisance
Negligence Tort
Duty of care • Breach of duty • Damage • Causation • Remoteness
Negligence Categories
Employment • Environmental pollution • Harmful products • Hosting patrons and guests • Infliction of mental injury • Misrepresentation • Occupation of premises • Professional services • Public authorities • Pure economic loss • Relational economic loss • Rescuers • Shoddy goods or structures • Treatment of indigenous children • Unborn children
Dishonesty & Abuse of Position Torts
Abuse of process • Breach of confidence • Conspiracy • Fraud • Inducing breach of contract • Injurious falsehood • Intimidation • Malicious prosecution • Misfeasance in public office • Passing off • Spoliation • Unlawful interference with economic interests
Strict Liability
Keeping dangerous animals • Non-natural use of land • Ultrahazardous activities • Vicarious liability
Defences
Apportionment of liability • Consent • Defamation defences • Defence of property • Denials • Excuses • Illegality • Legal authority • Limitation • Necessity • Self-defence
Remedies
Apologies • Damages • Injunctions • Insurance • Legal costs • Mitigation • Proprietary
Tort Law & Legal Systems
Charter values • Class actions • Concurrent actions • Constitutional torts • Indigenous dispute resolution • No-fault compensation schemes
Tort Theory
Instrumental theories • Relational theories • Critical theories • Reflexive theories
Study Resources
1L strategy • Answer exercises • Quizzes • Beswick's course site • Opening Up Tort Law Project
Index

Strict liability

Strict liability is a standard of liability that holds a defendant liable for the injuries caused to a person or their property without requiring proof of fault. This means that a defendant may be liable for causing damage even when their actions were neither intended nor negligent. When the standard of strict liability applies, the plaintiff need only prove that they suffered damage as a result of the defendant's actions.

Categories of strict liability

Strict liability is an exceptional standard in tort law, which ordinarily requires the plaintiff to prove some degree of fault on the defendant's part.

Categories in which courts recognise strict liability include the vicarious liability of principals for the torts of their agents, liability for dangerous escapes from non-natural uses of land, liability arising from keeping dangerous animals, product liability in the United States, and in some jurisdictions (albeit not Canada) liability for ultra-hazardous activities.

Historical development of strict liability

Prior to the landmark case of Rylands v. Fletcher, strict liability did not play a fundamental role in tort law. However, the rise of strict liability coincided with the "relentless progress of the Industrial Revolution", which was causing widespread accidents and collateral property damage across England. Many academics connect the rise of strict liability to desires to control the expansion of industrial practice. In practice, strict liability became a tool for industrial enterprises to internalize the cost of harm inflicted on the surrounding environment as a result of mass development.

Historical application of strict liability following Rylands v. Fletcher included actions against railway companies for sparks emitted from the train. Outlined in Jones v. Festiniog Railway Co (1868) LR 3 QB 733.

While strict liability does not play a major role in contemporary tort law, strict liability was a prominent legal category in the 19th century. Following Rylands v. Fletcher, strict liability was applied to a variety of cases, including railway companies held liable for "damage caused by sparks emitting from their locomotives, in absence of any proof of negligence." However, later years saw a particular expansion of negligence law following Donoghue v. Stevenson, causing a shift away from strict liability towards the tort of nuisance, and other property related torts. As a result, categories of strict liability in tort law have remained sparse, and have been "eroded in the course of the twentieth century" by the "relentless expansion of the tort of negligence".