Strict Liability in Personal Injury Lawsuits

Strict liability is a legal principle in personal injury law that holds a party responsible for damages or injuries even when there is no clear indication of negligence or intent to cause harm. Unlike cases that hinge on negligence, in which an injured person must show that a defendant breached a duty of care, strict liability focuses on the nature of the activity or situation involving the defendant.

Strict Products Liability

Many jurisdictions recognize strict products liability when a defective product causes an injury. A person who suffers harm due to a defective product may recover from anyone in the product’s chain of distribution, including manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. They would need to show that a product defect existed and that the defect caused the injury. These defects typically fall under three main categories: manufacturing defects, design defects, and failures to warn.

Manufacturing defects arise when a product deviates from its intended design, rendering it unsafe. An example might be a contaminated batch of medicine that leads to consumer harm or a defective weld on a bicycle that breaks and causes an injury. Design defects focus on a product’s inherent risks based on how it was conceived. For instance, a vehicle model prone to rolling over during routine driving maneuvers could be considered defectively designed. Failures to warn involve situations in which a manufacturer provides inadequate instructions or warnings about hazards.

Strict Liability for Injuries Caused by Animals

Some jurisdictions impose strict liability on owners and keepers of animals that bite or attack another individual, particularly when a statute or judicial decision deems that certain species pose an inherent risk of harm. In some states, though, the owner of a domesticated animal such as a dog or cat may face liability only upon evidence that the animal previously displayed dangerous tendencies, a legal principle sometimes described as the “one-bite rule.”

The rules can be especially strict for wild animals or exotic species that are not typically domesticated or easily controlled. Legislators and courts often reason that these animals have unpredictable temperaments, so owners bear the risk if harm occurs. Even if the owner secures the animal with high levels of care, liability may still be imposed when other people are injured by an inherently dangerous species.

Strict Liability for Abnormally Dangerous or Ultrahazardous Activities

Certain activities carry risks so extreme that courts deem them abnormally dangerous or ultrahazardous. Individuals or businesses that engage in these activities can be held strictly liable if the inherently hazardous nature of what they are doing leads to an injury. Examples include:

• Handling or storing explosive materials in densely populated areas
• Demolitions involving powerful explosives
• Transporting highly toxic chemicals
• Operating hazardous waste disposal sites

The nature of these undertakings is such that the risks cannot be eliminated through reasonable care. Even if a defendant took every available safety precaution, that diligence may not bar liability if the plaintiff can show that the activity was a substantial factor in causing the injury.

Defenses to Strict Liability Claims

Several defenses may reduce or completely bar recovery in strict liability cases. Assumption of risk is one such defense. Defendants may argue that an individual acted with knowledge of a hazard and voluntarily accepted the chance of injury. Comparative negligence can also play a role in some states, allowing courts to reduce damages if the plaintiff’s conduct contributed to the injury. Some states allow defendants in product liability cases to argue product misuse or alteration by the plaintiff if this misuse was not reasonably foreseeable. Defendants may also reference disclaimers or warranties, but these often have limited effectiveness if a court determines that a product was rendered unreasonably dangerous.

Statutes of limitations require suit to be brought within a specific timeframe after the injury, and statutes of repose can set an absolute cutoff for litigation regardless of when the harm was discovered. Federal preemption may shield a defendant when comprehensive federal regulations override or displace state law, which could happen when a product meets federally mandated requirements that a court deems controlling.

Last reviewed May 2025