Strict liability focuses on the condition of the product rather than the conduct of the manufacturer. A plaintiff must show the product was defective, the defect existed when it left the defendant's control, and it caused the injury.
It also applies outside the product context to abnormally dangerous activities and, in some jurisdictions, to certain animal-related injuries.
Alternative Names:
Strict Products Liability, Liability Without Fault
Why it Matters?
Strict liability removes the reasonableness inquiry that usually anchors a defense, so the focus shifts to defect, causation, and the plaintiff's own conduct. In practice the distinction from negligence blurs in design cases, since risk-utility balancing reintroduces reasonableness through the alternative design analysis. Defenses that survive include misuse, alteration, comparative fault where permitted, and preemption.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
Does strict liability mean automatic liability?
What defenses remain under strict liability?
