A legal doctrine imposing responsibility without regard to fault or wrong doing.
Liability which arises regardless of intention or fault of a person• Negligence & Duty of Care
Liability without proof of fault. In civil law, one who engages in activity that carries an inherent risk of injury is often liable for all injuries proximately caused by that activity; in criminal law, strict liability offenses (e.g. felony-murder) are those that do not require proof of criminal intent.
Concept applied by the courts in product liability cases that when a manufacturer presents his goods for public sale, he is representing that they are suitable for their intended use.
Usually used when referring to Products coverage. The liability that manufacturers and merchandisers may be subject to for defective products sold by them, regardless of fault or negligence. A claimant must prove that the product is defective and therefore unreasonably dangerous. See also Absolute Liability.
Doctrine that holds defendants liable for harm caused by their actions regardless of their intentions or lack of negligence. Often applied to manufacturers or sellers of defective products in products liability cases.
Most crimes can be committed with intent (mens rea), but some crimes don't fall into this category and are called strict liability offences. These offences are quite often those less serious crimes such as traffic offences and those where the usual penalty is a fine.
The legal liability that applies even where the act or omission in question is committed inadvertently and/or without the intent to fail to meet a duty or obligation.
When a person is automatically considered responsible, without proof of negligence, for damages due to items which are universally known to be highly dangerous, like owning poisonous animals or explosives.
Liability that is imposed without regard to fault.
Legal term meaning that the injured person need only prove: I was injured, the product was defective, and the defect caused the injury. It is not necessary to prove negligence, and neither good faith nor the fact that the defendant took all possible precautions are valid defenses.
Liability without proof of negligence, but based on one or more conditional requirements. Class
The imposition of criminal responsibility regardless of a person's intent.
This holds manufacturers responsible for the goods they produce, especially if they cause consumers injury.
Liability in which the producer/driver will be held responsible irrespective of their actions, if another person comes to harm as a result of the their actions.
Liability that does not require the employer to be aware of the illegal behavior. An employer is strictly liable for quid pro quo sexual harassment, meaning it does not have to be aware of the harassment, but is not strictly liable for hostile work environment sexual harassment. Return to course
Liability even when there is no proof of negligence. Often applicable in product liability cases against manufacturers, who are legally responsible for injuries caused by defects in their products, even if they were not negligent.
Liability that does not require the employer to have caused or be aware of the illegal behavior. For example an employer may be strictly liable for quid pro quo sexual harassment, meaning it does not have to be aware of the harassment, because the offender has the power to take employment-related action against the victim. Return to course
A legal doctrine holding manufacturers and merchandisers of goods liable for injuries caused by defective products sold by them, irrespective of fault or negligence, so long as the claimant can prove the product defective and that the defect made the product unreasonably dangerous.
Liability for damages even though fault or negligence cannot be proven.
Liability (q.v.) incurred regardless of intention.
The defendant is liable to the plaintiff regardless of fault.
An owner of a property is responsible to an injured party without excuse. (See liability)
Liability imposed by law irrespective of fault on the part of the person made liable, though often subject to certain defences.
Strict liability is imposed on a party that caused injuries or other losses to another. Strict liability is common in workers' compensation and product liability claims.
The legal liability that applies even when an act is unintentional.
Liability ascribed to a manufacturer or seller of a defective or dangerous product regardless of any fault or negligence.
Tort liability which is set upon the defendant without need to prove intent, negligence or fault; as long as you can prove that it was the defendant's object that caused the damage.
means that even if there is no proof of negligence, you can still be found guilty of an offence
the legal liability for an act or omission even where it is committed inadvertently
Usually dealing with property insurance, the liability that manufacturers and merchandisers may be subject to for defective products sold by them for damages, regardless of fault or negligence.
a concept applied by the courts in product liability cases in which a product manufacturer or seller is liable for any and all defective or hazardous products which unduly threaten a consumer's personal safety. Rather than proving NEGLIGENCE, it is only necessary to prove that the product was the PROXIMATE CAUSE of the injury.
Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes a person responsible for the damage and loss caused by their acts and omissions regardless of culpability (or fault in criminal law terms, which would normally be expressed through a mens rea requirement; see Strict liability (criminal)). Strict liability is important in torts (especially product liability), corporations law, and criminal law. For analysis of the pros and cons of strict liability as applied to product liability, the most important strict liability regime, see product liability.
In criminal law, strict liability is liability where mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") does not have to be proved in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offence. The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea.