Editing Strict liability (section)

==Tort law==
In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortious intent). The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible. The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous.<ref name="Cantu">{{cite journal |url=http://www.uakron.edu/law/lawreview/v35/docs/cantu351.pdf |title=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 |first1=Charles E. |last1=Cantú |journal=[[University of Akron Law Review]] |publisher=[[University of Akron School of Law]] |date=January 2, 2002 |access-date=May 2, 2012 }}{{Dead link|date=July 2019 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>  It discourages reckless behaviour and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution.  It has the beneficial effect of simplifying and thereby expediting court decisions in these cases, although the application of strict liability may seem unfair or harsh, as in ''[[Re Polemis]]''.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Mendelson |first=Danuta |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YwNBDgAAQBAJ&dq=strict+liability+Re+Polemis+Tort+law&pg=PT234 |title=Causation in Law and Medicine |date=2017-03-02 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-351-95302-3 |language=en}}</ref>

Under the [[English law]] of [[negligence]] and [[nuisance]], even where tortious liability is strict, the defendant may sometimes be liable only for the [[reasonably foreseeable]] consequences of his act or omission.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Mulheron |first=Rachael |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4kz-DwAAQBAJ&dq=strict+liability+reasonably+foreseeable+nuisance+consequences+of+his+act+or+omission.&pg=PA882 |title=Principles of Tort Law |date=2020-10-22 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-108-57512-6 |language=en}}</ref>

An early example of strict liability is the rule ''[[Rylands v Fletcher]]'', where it was held that "any person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape". If the owner of a zoo keeps lions and tigers, he is liable if the big cats escape and cause damage or injury.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Gray |first=Anthony |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-jgfEAAAQBAJ&q=strict+liability+Rylands+v+Fletcher%2C |title=The Evolution from Strict Liability to Fault in the Law of Torts |date=2021-02-25 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-1-5099-4101-8 |language=en}}</ref>

In strict liability situations, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defense of absence of fault, especially in cases of [[product liability]], where the defense may argue that the defect was the result of the plaintiff's actions and not of the product, that is, no inference of defect should be drawn solely because an accident occurs.<ref name=":2">''Hinckley v. La Mesa R.V. Center, Inc.'', 158  Cal. App.3d  630, 205  Cal. Rptr. 22 (1984)</ref>  If the plaintiff can prove that the defendant ''knew'' about the defect before the damages occurred, additional [[punitive]] damages can be awarded to the victim in some jurisdictions.<ref>{{Cite book |last=III |first=H. Beau Baez |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LUzQEAAAQBAJ&q=strict+liability+punitive+damages |title=Tort Law in the United States |date=2023-07-20 |publisher=Kluwer Law International B.V. |isbn=978-94-035-1297-6 |language=en}}</ref>

The doctrine's most famous advocates were [[Learned Hand]], [[Benjamin Cardozo]], and [[Roger J. Traynor]].<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Napolitano |first1=Giulio |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QlPGDwAAQBAJ&q=strict+liability+Hand,+Benjamin+Cardozo,+and+Roger+J.+Traynor. |title=Roma Tre Law Review: n.2/2019 |last2=Resta |first2=Giorgio |date=2019-12-23 |publisher=Roma TrE-Press |language=en}}</ref>

Strict liability is sometimes distinguished from [[absolute liability]]. In this context, an ''actus reus'' may be excused from strict liability if [[due diligence]] is proved. Absolute liability, however, requires only an ''[[actus reus]]''.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Jurgielewicz |first=Lynne M. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=duiOWBQuodYC&dq=strict+liability+liability+absolute+due+diligence&pg=PA57 |title=Global Environmental Change and International Law: Prospects for Progress in the Legal Order |date=1996 |publisher=University Press of America |isbn=978-0-7618-0285-3 |language=en}}</ref>

===Vaccines===
In the [[United States]] courts have applied strict liability to [[vaccines]]<ref>{{Cite book |last=Emanuel |first=Steven L. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oBbxEAAAQBAJ&dq=strict+liability+vaccines+2024&pg=PR26 |title=Emanuel Law Outlines for Torts |date=2024-01-26 |publisher=Aspen Publishing |isbn=978-1-5438-0757-8 |language=en}}</ref> since the [[Cutter incident]] in 1955.<ref name=Offit>{{cite book |last=Offit |first=Paul A. |author-link=Paul Offit |year=2005 |title=The Cutter Incident: How America's First Polio Vaccine Led to the Growing Vaccine Crisis |publisher=Yale University Press |isbn=978-0-300-10864-4|url=https://archive.org/details/cutterincidentho00offi/page/100 }}</ref> Some vaccines (e.g. for [[Lyme disease]])<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Hall |first1=Mark A. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lkb2EAAAQBAJ&dq=strict+liability+vaccines+2024&pg=PT479 |title=Health Care Law and Ethics |last2=Bobinski |first2=Mary Anne |last3=Orentlicher |first3=David |last4=Cohen |first4=I. Glenn |last5=Bagley |first5=Nicholas |last6=Sawicki |first6=Nadia N. |date=2024-02-28 |publisher=Aspen Publishing |isbn=978-1-5438-3887-9 |language=en}}</ref> have been removed from the market because of unacceptable liability risk to the manufacturer.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Detels |first1=Roger |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7H8yDwAAQBAJ&dq=strict+liability+vaccines+Lyme&pg=RA1-PA24 |title=Oxford Textbook of Global Public Health |last2=Gulliford |first2=Martin |last3=Karim |first3=Quarraisha Abdool |last4=Tan |first4=Chorh Chuan |date=2017 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-881013-1 |language=en}}</ref>

The [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) was enacted in 1986 to make an exception for childhood vaccines that are required for [[State school|public school]] attendance. The NCVIA created a no-fault compensation scheme to stabilize a vaccine market adversely affected by an increase in vaccine-related lawsuits, and to facilitate compensation to claimants who found pursuing legitimate vaccine-inflicted injuries too difficult and cost prohibitive.<ref name=Offit/><ref name=":0">{{cite news |last=Bentley |first=Linda |url=http://sonorannews.com/2017/07/03/vaccine-manufacturers-exempt-liability/ |title=Why vaccine manufacturers are exempt from liability |work=Sonoran News |date=July 3, 2017}}</ref>

===Bicycle–motor vehicle collisions===
A form of strict liability has been supported in law in the [[Cycling in the Netherlands|Netherlands]] since the early 1990s for bicycle-motor vehicle collisions.<ref name="BDstrictL">{{cite web|title=Strict liability in the Netherlands|url=http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liability-in-the-netherlands/|work=BicycleDutch website|access-date=5 December 2013|first=Mark|last=Wagenbuur|date=21 February 2013}}</ref> In a nutshell, this means that, in a collision between a car and a cyclist, the driver is deemed to be liable to pay [[damages]] and his insurer (motor vehicle insurance is mandatory in the Netherlands, while cyclist insurance is not) must pay the full damages, as long as 1) the collision was ''unintentional'' (i.e. neither party, motorist or cyclist, intentionally crashed into the other), and 2) the cyclist was not in error in some way.<ref name="BDstrictL" /> Even if a cyclist made an error, ''as long as the collision was still unintentional'', the motorist's insurance must still pay half of the damages. This does not apply if the cyclist is under 14 years of age, in which case the motorist must pay full damages.<ref name="BDstrictL" /> If it can be proved that a cyclist ''intended'' to collide with the car, then the cyclist must pay the damages (or their parents in the case of a minor).<ref name="BDstrictL" />

===General aviation===
The trend toward strict liability in the United States during the mid to late 20th century nearly destroyed the small aircraft industry by the mid 1990s. Production had dropped from a peak of 18,000 units per year in 1978 to under only a few hundred by 1993.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=C553EEEA-CED4-4492-AA9C-7AB38346475F|title=United States Senator John McCain|website=mccain.senate.gov|access-date=2018-07-19|archive-date=2017-12-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171212084213/https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=C553EEEA-CED4-4492-AA9C-7AB38346475F}}</ref><ref name="auto">{{cite journal|url=https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-20448657/general-aviation-revitalization-act-its-effect-on|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140227043219/http://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-20448657/general-aviation-revitalization-act-its-effect-on|url-status=dead|archive-date=February 27, 2014|title=General Aviation Revitalization Act: Its Effect on Manufacturers|last=Kister|first=Thomas H.|date=1 January 1998|journal=Defense Counsel Journal|volume=65|issue=1}}</ref> With a concurrent increase in the cost of liability insurance per airplane rising from $50 in 1962 to $100,000 in 1988, and many underwriters had begun to refuse all new policies.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Transportation-Journal/17572867.html |title=The rise and fall of general aviation: Product liability, market structure, and technological innovation |access-date=2018-07-19 |archive-date=2017-07-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170711045020/http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Transportation-Journal/17572867.html }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.bls.gov/productivity/|title=Productivity Home Page|website=Bureau of Labor Statistics}}</ref><ref>AOPA Pilot staff, "Cessna Suspends Production of All Piston Models," ''AOPA Pilot'' magazine, July 1986, pp.24-25, Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association, Washington, D.C.</ref><ref name="auto"/>