Strict Liability
Strict liability is liability without fault.
19. Strict Liability
Strict liability, or liability without fault, may be available for harm caused by abnormally dangerous activities (such as dynamite blasting, crop dusting, commercial pesticide spraying, transportation and storage of hazardous waste), wild animals, and intruding livestock.
- Strict liability for abnormally dangerous conditions differs from liability for negligence.
- Strict liability imposes liability on a defendant even though that defendant took all reasonable precautions.
- Negligence imposes liability when the defendant failed to take reasonable precautions.
- Strict liability is limited to harm caused by the abnormally dangerous aspect of the activity or wild animal. E.g., there is no strict liability for bruises from tripping over a box of dynamite or a sleeping tiger.
- Recovery for strict liability requires proof of damages. In this respect, liability for strict liability resembles liability for negligence.
- To recover for strict liability, the defendant’s actions must be a but-for cause of the plaintiff’s harm.
- The Nevada FLE does not test application of strict liability to pets other than wild animals known by their owners to have dangerous propensities. Jurisdictions vary in whether they apply strict liability or negligence to other pets.
- The Nevada FLE does not test other types of strict liability, such as strict liability for product defects.
Strict liability is liability without fault: in three categories, the law stops asking whether the defendant was careful, and even a defendant who took every reasonable precaution is on the hook.
Strict liability is liability without fault. It applies only to three buckets of harm. The point of the doctrine is that for these three categories the law stops asking whether the defendant was careful. Even a defendant who took every reasonable precaution is on the hook. That is the whole difference from negligence: in negligence you win by showing the defendant failed to use reasonable care, while in strict liability the defendant's care is beside the point.
- 1Harm from an abnormally dangerous activity.
- 2Harm from a wild animal.
- 3Harm from intruding livestock.
Three things still have to be true, though, and they are easy to overlook. First, the harm must flow from the dangerous aspect itself, not from some ordinary hazard that happened to be nearby; a sleeping tiger or a stationary box of dynamite that someone trips over does not trigger strict liability, because the bite or the blast is the dangerous aspect, not the tripping. Second, the plaintiff still has to prove actual damages, just as in negligence. Third, the defendant's conduct still has to be a but-for cause of the harm. The listed abnormally dangerous activities (blasting, crop dusting, commercial pesticide spraying, hazardous-waste transport and storage) are illustrative examples, not a closed list.
The danger has to do the damage. Harm from an ordinary hazard nearby, like tripping over a box of dynamite or a sleeping tiger, is back in ordinary negligence. And reasonable care is no defense; do not let a careful-defendant fact defeat the claim.
Two things are off the table entirely: product-defect strict liability is not tested, and strict liability for ordinary pets that are not wild animals with known dangerous propensities is not tested.
"No fault, three buckets." Strict liability ignores how careful the defendant was, but it only covers three things: abnormally Dangerous activities, Wild animals, and intruding Livestock.
D-W-L.
"The danger has to do the damage." The harm must come from the dangerous aspect itself.
The tiger has to bite; the blast has to blast.
Trip over the sleeping tiger or the boxed-up dynamite and you are back in ordinary negligence, with no strict liability.
"Care is irrelevant; causation and damages are not." Reasonable precautions are no defense, but the plaintiff still must prove real damages and but-for causation, exactly as in negligence.
Off-limits pair: no products, no ordinary pets.
If the wrong answer leans on a defective product or a house cat with no known dangerous streak, it is outside this concept.
A waste-hauling company transports drums of hazardous chemicals along a rural highway, following every safety regulation and using a specially reinforced tanker. A drum's seal fails despite the precautions, and leaking vapor drifts onto an adjacent farm and kills a field of crops.
Suppose instead a farmhand trips over a sealed, stationary drum sitting in the company yard and sprains an ankle. No vapor escaped.
A "No" answer that rests on the defendant having taken every reasonable precaution or followed every safety rule.
Care is not a defense to strict liability. Liability attaches even though the defendant used all reasonable precautions, so the careful-defendant fact is true but irrelevant.An absolute option: keeping a wild animal makes the owner liable for any injury, or an owner is strictly liable for all harm caused by any animal.
Strict liability is limited to harm caused by the dangerous aspect of the activity or the dangerous propensity of a wild animal; it does not reach every injury or every animal.A theory borrowed from outside this concept: a product defect, or strict liability aimed at an ordinary pet with no known dangerous propensity.
Both are excluded from the Nevada FLE's strict-liability scope. Product-defect strict liability and ordinary pets are not tested, so neither can be the operative ground.An option that adds a fault or intent requirement: the plaintiff must prove the defendant failed to use reasonable care, or intended the harm.
Strict liability requires neither fault nor intent. The plaintiff proves damages and but-for causation flowing from the dangerous aspect, nothing more.the stem describes one of the three buckets (an abnormally dangerous activity such as blasting, crop dusting, pesticide spraying, or hazardous-waste handling; a wild animal; or livestock that strays onto another's land) and then stresses that the defendant was careful or took precautions.
The instant you see a careful defendant paired with one of these activities, think strict liability and ignore the care.
Then run two checks: did the harm come from the dangerous aspect itself, and does the plaintiff have actual damages caused by it.
If the injury came from an ordinary hazard nearby (tripping, a stationary object), or the theory leans on a product defect or an ordinary pet, the strict-liability claim fails.
An aerial spraying business was hired to crop dust a large farm. The pilot followed every applicable safety rule, checked the wind, and flew at the recommended altitude. Even so, a gust carried some of the chemical spray onto a neighbor's adjoining orchard, where it killed several fruit trees. The neighbor sued the spraying business.
Is the neighbor likely to recover for the damage to the orchard?
A collector kept a venomous snake as part of a private reptile collection, housed in a locked glass tank. The collector handled the snake carefully and inspected the tank's latch daily. During one feeding the snake struck without warning and bit a guest who was standing nearby, injecting venom that required hospital treatment. The guest sued the collector under strict liability for keeping a wild animal.
Is the guest likely to succeed on the strict liability claim?
A homeowner owned a friendly pet dog with no history of biting or aggression. One afternoon a delivery driver walked up the front path, the dog ran out an open gate, and in the excitement knocked the driver down, breaking the driver's arm. The driver sued the homeowner, arguing that the homeowner should be strictly liable for the injury caused by the dog.
Is the strict liability claim likely to succeed?
A rancher kept a herd of cattle behind a fence. A section of the fence gave way, and several head of cattle wandered onto a neighboring vegetable grower's land, where they trampled and ate a portion of the vegetable crop before they were rounded up. The grower sued the rancher under strict liability.
Is the grower likely to recover for the destroyed crop?