**Group 1: General Overview of Strict Liability**
– Tort Law:
– Imposes liability without fault
– Claimant must prove tort occurred and defendant was responsible
– Imputes liability to inherently dangerous situations
– Simplifies court decisions
– Criminal Law:
– Strict liability concept present in criminal law
– Often applies to vehicular traffic offenses
– Legislature’s intent determines strict liability
– Default mens rea requirement under Model Penal Code
– Prevents defendants from raising diminished mental capacity defenses
**Group 2: Application of Strict Liability in Specific Areas**
– Vaccines:
– Strict liability applied since Cutter incident in 1955
– Some vaccines removed due to liability risk
– National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act enacted in 1986
– Created no-fault compensation scheme
– Stabilized vaccine market affected by lawsuits
– Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions:
– Strict liability in the Netherlands since early 1990s
– Driver liable in car-cyclist collisions
– Insurer must pay full damages if collision unintentional
– Motorist must pay half damages even if cyclist at fault
– Cyclist under 14, motorist pays full damages
– General Aviation:
– Trend towards strict liability in US impacted small aircraft industry
– Production dropped significantly by mid-1990s
– Cost of liability insurance per airplane rose drastically
– Many underwriters refused new policies
– Nearly destroyed small aircraft industry
**Group 3: Legal Precedents and Legislation**
– Hinckley v. La Mesa R.V. Center, Inc., 158Cal. App.3d630, 205Cal. Rptr. 22 (1984)
– Cantú, Charles E. (January 2, 2002). Distinguishing the Concept of Strict Liability for Ultra-Hazardous Activities from Strict Liability Under Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts: Two Parallel Lines of Reasoning that Should Never Meet (PDF). University of Akron Law Review. University of Akron School of Law. Retrieved May 2, 2012
– Lee, Cynthia (2009). Criminal Law Cases and Materials. F. Strict Liability Crimes: WEST A Thomas Reuters Business. pp.219–221, 989. ISBN9780314151285
**Group 4: Impact and Consequences of Strict Liability**
– Trend towards strict liability in US impacted small aircraft industry
– Production dropped significantly by mid-1990s
– Cost of liability insurance per airplane rose drastically
– Many underwriters refused new policies
– Nearly destroyed small aircraft industry
**Group 5: References and Additional Resources**
– Offit, Paul A. (2005). The Cutter Incident: How Americas First Polio Vaccine Led to the Growing Vaccine Crisis. Yale University Press. ISBN978-0-300-10864-4
– Aronowitz, Robert A (June 2016). The Rise and Fall of the Lyme Disease Vaccines: A Cautionary Tale for Risk Interventions in American Medicine and Public Health. The Milbank Quarterly. 90 (2): 250–277. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00663.x. ISSN0887-378X. PMC3460208. PMID22709388
In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant.
Under the strict liability law, if the defendant possesses anything that is inherently dangerous, as specified under the "ultrahazardous" definition, the defendant is then strictly liable for any damages caused by such possession, no matter how careful the defendant is safeguarding them.
In the field of torts, prominent examples of strict liability may include product liability, abnormally dangerous activities (e.g., blasting), intrusion onto another's land by livestock, and ownership of wild animals.
Other than activities specified above (like ownership of wild animals, etc), US courts have historically considered the following activities as "ultrahazardous":
- storing flammable liquids in quantity in an urban area
- pile driving
- blasting
- crop dusting
- fumigation with cyanide gas
- emission of noxious fumes by a manufacturing plant located in a settled area
- locating oil wells or refineries in populated communities
- test firing solid-fuel rocket motors.
On the other hand, US courts typically rule the following activities as not "ultrahazardous": parachuting, drunk driving, maintaining power lines, and letting water escape from an irrigation ditch.
Traditional criminal offenses that require no element of intent (mens rea) include statutory rape and felony murder.