Strict Liability
In most personal injury cases throughout Los Angeles and California, victims must show that someone or some entity was at fault for their injuries. Fault could be based on negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, or intent. It some situations, however, fault doesn’t need to be shown because the person or entity is strictly liable regardless.
If you have been injured, your claim could be based on strict liability, depending on the facts and circumstances. Having a strong, smart personal injury attorney with experience specific to your case can be difficult to find––like a needle in a haystack, as they say. There are scores of personal injury attorneys throughout the Los Angeles metro area. We, however, know the personal injury attorneys and have built working relationships with them. We will connect you with the right attorney for your circumstances. That saves you a lot of time, energy, and hassle. Contact us today to learn more. In the meantime, here’s what you need to know about strict liability cases.
What is Strict Liability?
Strict liability is a legal theory of liability that holds one party or parties responsible for another person’s injury regardless of fault. The doctrine typically applies to dangerous situations. In California, this legal doctrine applies to cases involving:
1. Defective products;
2. Ultra hazardous activities;
3. Domestic animals with dangerous propensities; or
4. Wild animals.
Strict liability is applied in these types of situations as a means to protect the public. Each situation has its own legal requirements, though, in order for strict liability to succeed and for you to obtain compensation.
Get the Most from Our Case Review Services
Zero Fees, Zero Obligations, Zero Pressure
Every Consultation is Tailored and Private
5-star reviews also attest to "Why Us"
Defective Products
Defective products that cause injury are referred to as products liability cases. Products liability materializes in three situations:
1. The product was designed with a defect, in which case the designer is typically sued.
2. The product was defectively manufactured, in which case the maker is typically sued.
3. The product was not accompanied by sufficient instructions or a warning of possible dangers, in which case any party of the supply and distribution chain may be sued.
In any of these cases, however, the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer could be held responsible––it all depends on the facts and circumstances. In these types of cases, too, the plaintiff does not need to prove things like duty, breach, causation, and damages.
The strict liability doctrine as applied to defective products does not mean absolute liability. If a person, for example, uses a product for another purpose than what it was intended and is harmed because of it, the defendant may have a defense.
Ultrahazardous Activities
When activities are considered ultrahazardous, the person performing or undertaking the activity is responsible for any injuries caused to another person so long as the injuries are a proximate result of the ultrahazardous activity. What is considered “ultrahazardous” is a question of law, and so the court will determine it. Some questions the court may consider when determining if an activity is ultrahazardous include but are not limited to the following:
1. Does the activity involve a high degree of risk of harm?
2. How likely is the harm from the activity to be great?
3. Is there a way to eliminate the risk by using reasonable care?
4. How important is the activity to the community versus its dangers?
Examples of ultrahazardous activities include things like:
- Test firing large rockets
- Using explosives
- Operating electric power lines
- Drilling oil wells
- Using hydrocyanic acid gas
- Using noxious and/or potentially toxic materials (e.g., sulfuric acid).
Companies or people undertaking ultrahazardous activities have a higher standard of care; they must take extreme caution rather than reasonable care. Also, the harm rendered must be the kind of harm anticipated in this type of activity.
Domestic Animals with Dangerous Propensities
There are two lines of thinking when it comes to strict liability and domestic animals with dangerous propensities.
1. Knowledge of Dangerous or Vicious Propensities. When an owner of a domestic animal, including livestock, knows or reasonably should have known that the animal has dangerous or vicious propensities, then the owner is strictly liable for any injuries caused by the animal. For example, a mix-breed dog may always have shown nothing but gentleness to its owners, but then one day it attacks a visiting child. The owners may not be strictly liable in this circumstance, but they could be if another person or child visits, and the owners fail to restrain the dog and it attacks again. In this situation, the owners had knowledge of their dog’s propensity to be dangerous, and therefore may be strictly liable for the dog bite and/or attack.
2. Inherent Propensity to be Dangerous or Vicious. In cases where the domestic animal is of a species known to be inherently dangerous, then knowledge of any dangerous propensities is not necessary, the owner will be held strictly liable for any harm the animal causes. For example, Pitbulls are a dog breed recognized in Los Angeles as an inherently dangerous anima. An owner of a pitbull may never have had a problem with the dog, who in its own defense has only been a gentle animal, until one day a visitor comes and the dog attacks. In this scenario, the owner is strictly liable even though the dog never showed any dangerous behavior before.
Wild Animals
A person is not liable for a wild animal’s harm to another person unless that person owns, keeps, or controls the wild animal. This is true no matter how careful a person is guarding or restraining the wild animal. So, if:
- a person keeps a wild animal; and
- another person is harmed; and
- the wild animal is a substantial factor in causing harm; then the owner of the wild animal is strictly liable. For example, a squirrel bites you on your friend’s porch, and you suffer an infection. Your friend is not liable unless he owned, kept, or otherwise controlled the squirrel.
Does California’s Pure Comparative Fault Doctrine Apply to Strict Liability Cases?
Unlike other personal injury cases, the victim is not seen as contributing to his or her injury in strict liability cases, especially product liability cases. But it can happen, and when it does, a jury will apportion the responsibility. The victim’s award will be reduced according to the percentage of responsibility the jury assigns to the plaintiff.
There may also be multiple defendants. A jury must determine first that each defendant’s act or omission to act, including in products liability cases, was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injury. Then, the jury must designate a percentage of responsibility for each defendant (joint and several liability). That said,
Under the doctrine of strict products liability, all defendants in the chain of distribution are jointly and severally liable, meaning that each defendant can be held liable to the plaintiff for all damages the defective product caused. (Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 990, 1010 [169 Cal.Rptr.3d 208].)
What Damages Are Available in Strict Liability Cases in California?
Like most personal injury cases, a victim injured by a party who is strictly liable can recover the following:
- Lost earnings
- Lost future earnings
- Lost profits
- Lost future profits
- Medical expenses
- Physical pain
- Future physical pain
- Mental suffering
- Future mental suffering, etc.
In some cases where the defendant was reckless, in addition to all compensatory damages that apply to your specific case, an attorney may also be able to obtain punitive damages for you.
Are There Defenses in California to Strict Liability Claims You Should Know?
Strict liability, as mentioned above, does not mean absolute liability. Sometimes a defendant may have a defense. For example, the defendant can prove:
- The victim used a product differently than it’s intended use, and when that’s the case, the victim––not the manufacturer, distributor, or seller––is responsible.
- Alleged ultrahazardous activities are proven not to meet the level of ultrahazardous.
- An owner of a domestic animal had no reason to believe or reasonably know the animal was dangerous, and the animal is not recognized as inherently vicious.
- A wild animal was not under the control or was not kept or owned by the defendant.
A defendant may also be able to show that the statute of limitations (2 years typically) has expired, and in this case, a court will dismiss the claim or lawsuit––that’s why it is so important to find an attorney in Los Angeles as soon as possible when you have been injured by a defective product, ultrahazardous activity, or an animal.
Find a Strong, Knowledgeable Strict Liability Attorney in Los Angeles Today
An experienced strict liability attorney can make all the difference in your case. Many times when dealing with strict liability, you are dealing with a company or insurance agency that has a team of lawyers ready to fight against the accusations. You need an attorney who can successfully handle your case and beat the defendant’s attempts to reduce or deny you just and fair compensation. Contact us today to get started.
