Learning Outcomes
After reading this article, you will be able to explain the requirements for strict liability at common law, identify when strict liability applies to abnormally dangerous activities and animals, distinguish strict liability from negligence, and apply the main defenses to strict liability claims. You will also be able to answer MBE-style questions on these topics.
MBE Syllabus
For MBE, you are required to understand the scope and application of strict liability at common law. This includes knowing when strict liability applies, the types of activities and animals covered, and the main defenses. You should be able to:
- Recognize when strict liability applies to abnormally dangerous activities.
- Identify strict liability for harm caused by wild and certain domestic animals.
- Distinguish strict liability from negligence and nuisance.
- Apply the main defenses to strict liability claims, including assumption of risk and contributory negligence.
- Understand the limits of strict liability and the requirement of causation.
Test Your Knowledge
Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.
-
Which of the following is most likely to give rise to strict liability at common law?
- A driver negligently causes a car accident.
- A person keeps a tiger as a pet and it escapes, injuring a neighbor.
- A store sells spoiled food, causing illness.
- A landlord fails to repair a broken stair, resulting in injury.
-
Under common law, strict liability for harm caused by animals applies:
- Only to wild animals, never to domestic animals.
- Only if the animal owner was negligent.
- To wild animals and to domestic animals with known dangerous tendencies.
- Only if the animal is used for commercial purposes.
-
Which defense is generally NOT available to a defendant in a strict liability action for abnormally dangerous activities?
- Assumption of risk by the plaintiff.
- Contributory negligence where the plaintiff failed to appreciate the risk.
- The activity was carried out with reasonable care.
- The harm was not caused by the dangerous aspect of the activity.
Introduction
Strict liability at common law imposes liability without proof of fault for certain activities and harms. Unlike negligence, strict liability focuses on the nature of the defendant’s activity or animal, not on whether the defendant acted carefully. The main areas where strict liability applies are abnormally dangerous activities and harm caused by animals. Understanding when strict liability is imposed, and the limits and defenses to such liability, is essential for MBE success.
Strict Liability: The Principle
Strict liability holds a defendant liable for harm resulting from certain activities, regardless of the level of care exercised. The rationale is that some activities are so hazardous that those who engage in them should bear the risk of harm to others.
Key Term: Strict Liability Liability imposed for harm caused by certain activities or animals, regardless of the defendant’s fault or care.
Abnormally Dangerous Activities
Strict liability applies to activities that create a significant risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is taken, and which are not common in the community. Classic examples include blasting with explosives, storing large quantities of flammable liquids, or using toxic chemicals.
Key Term: Abnormally Dangerous Activity An activity that creates a foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is used, and is not a matter of common usage.
To impose strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity, the following must be shown:
- The activity creates a high risk of serious harm.
- The risk cannot be eliminated by reasonable care.
- The activity is not commonly carried out in the area.
- The harm results from the dangerous aspect of the activity.
Animals and Strict Liability
Strict liability also applies to harm caused by animals in two main situations:
Key Term: Wild Animal An animal not customarily domesticated and likely to cause injury, for which the owner is strictly liable for harm caused.
Key Term: Domestic Animal An animal usually domesticated, such as a dog or horse, for which the owner is strictly liable only if the animal has known dangerous tendencies.
- Wild Animals: Owners are strictly liable for harm caused by wild animals, even if the animal is kept securely and the owner exercised all possible care.
- Domestic Animals: Owners are strictly liable only if they knew or should have known of the animal’s dangerous propensities (the "one bite" rule).
Causation and Scope of Liability
Strict liability does not make the defendant an insurer for all harm. The harm must result from the type of danger that makes the activity or animal abnormally dangerous. If the harm is not related to the dangerous aspect, strict liability does not apply.
Key Term: Scope of Strict Liability Strict liability applies only to harm resulting from the type of risk that makes the activity or animal dangerous.
Defenses to Strict Liability
The main defenses to strict liability are:
- Assumption of Risk: If the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily encounters the risk, recovery is barred.
- Contributory Negligence: In most jurisdictions, ordinary contributory negligence is not a defense, but knowing contributory negligence (i.e., assumption of risk) is.
- Not the Dangerous Propensity: If the harm did not result from the dangerous aspect of the activity or animal, strict liability does not apply.
Worked Example 1.1
A demolition company uses explosives to demolish a building. Despite all safety precautions, debris flies onto a neighbor’s property, damaging a car. The neighbor sues the company for damages. Is the company strictly liable?
Answer: Yes. Blasting with explosives is an abnormally dangerous activity. The harm (flying debris) resulted from the dangerous aspect of the activity. Strict liability applies even if the company used reasonable care.
Worked Example 1.2
A homeowner keeps a pet wolf. The wolf escapes from a locked cage and bites a passerby. The passerby sues the homeowner. Is the homeowner strictly liable?
Answer: Yes. Keeping a wolf is keeping a wild animal. The owner is strictly liable for harm caused by the animal, regardless of precautions taken.
Worked Example 1.3
A farmer owns a dog that has never bitten anyone. The dog escapes and injures a neighbor. Is the farmer strictly liable?
Answer: No. For domestic animals, strict liability applies only if the owner knew or should have known of the animal’s dangerous tendencies. If the dog had never shown such tendencies, the farmer is not strictly liable (but may be liable for negligence).
Exam Warning
In strict liability questions, always check that the harm resulted from the dangerous aspect of the activity or animal. If the harm is unrelated (e.g., a passerby trips over a blasting sign), strict liability does not apply.
Revision Tip
Remember: Strict liability does not apply to all dangerous activities—only those that are abnormally dangerous and not common in the area.
Key Point Checklist
This article has covered the following key knowledge points:
- Strict liability at common law imposes liability without fault for certain activities and animals.
- Abnormally dangerous activities (e.g., blasting, storing explosives) attract strict liability if harm results from the dangerous aspect.
- Owners of wild animals are strictly liable for harm caused; owners of domestic animals are strictly liable only if the animal has known dangerous tendencies.
- Strict liability applies only to harm resulting from the dangerous nature of the activity or animal.
- Defenses include assumption of risk and, in some cases, contributory negligence.
- Reasonable care is not a defense to strict liability.
Key Terms and Concepts
- Strict Liability
- Abnormally Dangerous Activity
- Wild Animal
- Domestic Animal
- Scope of Strict Liability
