Connect with verified Lawyers for personalized legal help
Strict liability is a legal standard that holds a defendant responsible regardless of the intent or mental state of the defendant. In a lawsuit, this means it is easier to prove than a typical charge which may require the defendant to have a certain mental state in order to be held liable for wrongdoing.
In the civil sphere, there are two main types of strict liability: animal attacks and products liability. In products liability cases, the defendant is being held strictly liable for things that are effectively owned by the plaintiff. In animal attack cases, the defendant is being held accountable for injuries allegedly caused by their property.
In general, if the facts support a claim of strict liability it is likely to succeed. Under strict liability standards, there must be sufficient to determine that it is more likely than not that the defendant or their product or property caused the alleged harm. If this can be persuasively demonstrated, then a strict liability case is likely to succeed.
Negligence and intentional wrongdoing both concern the mental state of the defendant when the alleged harm occurred. In an intentional wrongdoing case it must be shown that the defendant intentionally harmed the plaintiff while in a negligence case it must be shown that they were not acting as a reasonable person would and violated their duty of care. However, strict liability does not take into account mental state at all. If the fact pattern matches the plaintiff’s allegation then the defendant’s state of mind is irrelevant.
As in any other civil case, the most common damages awarded is money. Depending on the severity of the injury or the length of time in which it is expected to impact the plaintiff it may be more or less, but generally the court demands financial compensation for injuries of all kinds. In the cast of an especially harmful practice, the defendant may also have to enter into a consent decree and change some component of how they conduct themselves but this is more common in a settlement agreement than from a successful verdict.
