Daredevil’s Dilemma: Strict Liability in Torts Law
Learn how ordinary actions can have extraordinary legal consequences.
One sunny afternoon, Kevin decides to host a neighborhood barbecue. He makes sure the grill and the propane tank are ready, and all flammable materials are safely stored. Meanwhile, across the street, his neighbor Joe is engaged in a risky endeavor, tinkering with his homemade rocket. Despite Joe’s very thorough assembly and good intentions, the rocket malfunctions during launch, flying across the street and exploding near Kevin’s barbecue. This incident introduces us to the concept of strict liability, a legal principle that assigns responsibility without the need to prove fault, such as negligence or intent. Strict liability shifts the focus from the conduct of the individual to the nature of the activity involved.
This concept contrasts with standard negligence law, as seen in the classic example of Cohen v. Petty (1933). In that case, the defendant, who caused an accident due to an unforeseeable fainting spell, was not held liable because he exercised reasonable care and was not involved into abnormal activities (defendant was driving).
Torts law encompasses various standards of care, from the highest owed by common carriers to their passengers to the limited duty owed by a landowner to a…
