Defences To Strict Liability: 5 Defences A Defendant Can Plea - Bscholarly (2024)
In this article i will share with you the defences a defendant can plea in the tort of strict liability. If you are a student or a researcher and you have been searching for the defences to strict liability in tort, then search no further. This is a comprehensive article on the defences to the tort of strict liability. Nonetheless, before going into the crux of this post, i would like to explain some concepts so as to enable you understand easily when the substantial part of this topic is discussed. So first, what is strict liability?
The principle of strict liability is said to arise in situations where fault is considered to be irrelevant to the question of liability. This means that a defendant will be liable for damages caused by his act, irrespective of any fault on his part. In explaining this principle, Salmond said that “a man acts his paril and is responsible for accidental harm, independent of the existence of either wrongful intent or negligence.”Thus, once damage occurs, compensation would automatically be granted.
The principle was made by Blackburn J in the case of Ryland v Fletcher. For the purpose of this work, i will briefly explain the principle according to Blackburn and also discuss the facts of Ryland v Fletcher (1865) 3H&C. 774; 159 E.R. 737 (Court of Exchequer).
Also: How to become a successful lawyer: 7 Successful Lawyer Qualities
Table of Contents
Liability under the rule in Ryland v Fletcher:
The rule in Ryland v Fletcher (1865) 3H&C. 774; 159 E.R. 737 (Court of Exchequer) makes a defendant liable irrespective of fault on his part. The rule states that any person who, in the course of non-natural use of his land, accumulates thereon, for his own purpose, anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, is liable for all direct damage or interference with the use of the land of another, which results from the escape of the thing from his land.
Facts of the case of Ryland v Fletcher are given below:
The defendants employed independent contractors to construct a reservoir on their land. While carrying out the work, the independent contractors discovered some disused shafts beneath the site of the reservoir which connected their land with the plaintiff’s mine. They negligently did not block them up because the shafts appeared to be filled with earth.
When the reservoir was completed and filled with water, the water escaped down the shafts and flooded the mine of the plaintiffs. It was found that the defendant had not been negligent, although the independent contractors had been. Nonetheless, the defendants were held liable under the rule of law established by Blackburn J.
MUST READ: Why lawyers are called liars? See why lawyers are liars
Liability for damages caused by animals:
Liability for damages caused by an animal being kept by a defendant may arise under under several torts. For example, a person who teaches his parrot to utter defamatory words may be held liable if the parrot utter those words in the presence of a third person. He will be responsible for the defamation as if he has spoken it. Conversely, a person who drives a heard of cattle to the middle of the road and causes obstruction there, will be liable in public nuisance.
More so, a person who incites an animal to attack another person may be liable in assult and battery as if he hit that person by himself, he can also be liable in trespass, for example, if he allows his animal to enter prohibited land, provided he intended it to happen or negligence for the foreseeable damage done by his animal.
Defences to Strict Liability
Now that you have understood the principle of strict liability and the case where the rule was made, it is wise to share the defences a defendant can plea in the case of strict liability.
Act of a Third Party or a Stranger
The principle of strict liability will not apply where the escape complained of was caused by the deliberate act of a stranger which could not reasonably have been anticipated by the defendant. Thus, that can be use as a defence to strict liability in tort. In Box v Jubb (1879) 4 Ex Div. 76, the defendants, owners of a reservoir, were held not liable for the flooding of neighboring land caused by the act of a third party in emptying his own reservoir into others.
A similar decision was given in Richard v Lothian. Here, the defendant failed in his claim when a third party turned on the tap and deliberately blocked up the water-pipe of a lavatory basin in the defendant’s premises, thereby flooding the plaintiff’s premises. This is apparently one of the most used defences for strict liability in strict liability.
Must read:Case on nuisance: 10 Court Cases On the tort of nuisance
Consent of the plaintiff
It is defence to strict liability that the consent of the plaintiff was given directly or impliedly before the injury occurred. Where the plaintiff has, expressly or impliedly, consented or permitted the defendant to accumulate the thing, the excape of which is complained of, then he cannot sue if it escapes.
This was corroborated in the case of Kiddle v City Business properties Ltd (1942) 1 K. B. 269. In this case, water from the sloppy roof above the plaintiff’s shop escaped from a gutter above his shop, and this gutter channelled the water to the plaintiff’s premises. The plaintiff/tenant’s stock was damaged. This was due to the blocking of the pipe with rubbish.
The defendant landlord had not been negligent and it was held that the plaintiff, having accepted the lease of the building as it was, with the shop as apart of the building, and the over-hanging gutter as it was, had consented to the damage. This is a clear case of implied consent.
Default of the plaintiff
Another defence for a defendant in the case of strict liability is to show that the plaintiff was trespassing on land where a vicious animal was kept when the animal injured him, unless the animal was kept to deliberately attack and injure trespassers and not merely to deter them.
This was stated in Brock v Copeland that “every man has a right to keep a dog to guard one’s house.” Clearly, the question of keeping a dog to guard one’s house is consistent with the duty of common humanity to trespassers as was laid down in British Railway Board v Herrington, provided some warning of its presence is given.
Thus, it was stated in that case that “… If the presence of the trespassers is known to or reasonably to be anticipated by the occupier”, then the keeper of the animal would be expected to be human, i.e act in accordance with common standards of civilized behavior, in exposing him to the danger posed by the presence of the animal on the premises. It is therefore obviously inhuman to keep a lion or cobra for the purpose of the protection of one’s house, whereas keeping a dog, even a fierce one, maybe considered reasonable in the circ*mstances.
MUST READ:
See the Pillars of every democratic state
Cheapest universities to study law in Nigeria
Richest lawyers in Nigeria 2020
Contributory negligence
Accordingly, a defendant can plea that the damage to the plaintiff was caused partly or entirely due to the default of the plaintiff. For example, where he teases a dog or touches animals in a zoo.
In Marlor v Ball (1900) 16 T. L. R. the plaintiff, who was stroking a Zebra at a zoo was kicked by the animal and he fell into the next stall, where he was bitten on the hand by another animal, and his hand had to be amputated. The court held that he brought the injury upon himself.
Act of God
An act of God is said to occur where the escape is caused by natural causes, and without human intervention, in circ*mstances which no human foresight can provide against, and of which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility. That is to say, that the escape is caused by natural forces beyond human anticipation or avoidance.
This was the the position in the case Nichola v Marsland (1876) 2 Ex. D. I. Here, the defendant created some artificial ornamental lakes by damming up a natural stream. He was held not liable and succeeded on the defence of Act of God when an extraordinary rainfall “greater and more violent than any within the memory of witnesses caused the artificial embankments to collapse and the rush of the escaping water destroyed four nearby bridges of the ruch of the escaping water destroyed four nearby bridges of the plaintiff.
The defendant was not negligent, and could not be made liable for an extraordinary act of nature, which she could not reasonably have anticipated.
MUST READ:Donoghue v Stevenson: Facts, Issues and Decision of the court
Yeah! There you have the defences for strict liability. Note that the defences here are not exhaustive. There are other defences not discussed here. However, i have touched a substantial number of the defences that can be pleaded in strict liability.
If you have questions or contributions to make concerning the defences discussed above, i enjoin you to share them with us using the comment section below this post.
Edeh Samuel Chukwuemeka ACMC
Edeh Samuel Chukwuemeka ACMC, is a Law Student and a Certified Mediator/Conciliator in Nigeria. He is also a Developer with knowledge in HTML, CSS, JS, PHP and React Native. Samuel is bent on changing the legal profession by building Web and Mobile Apps that will make legal research a lot easier.
In certain situations, an action that would otherwise be deemed a crime may be lawful. Among the defenses the accused can raise to avoid criminal responsibility are self-defense, necessity, intoxication, duress, mistake of law or fact, and mental incompetency.
There are multiple defenses to this alleged action; these would include the defenses of contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and product misuse.
Commonly-Known Danger: The defendant must show that the plaintiff's injury resulted from a danger so commonly known by the general public that the defendant had no duty to warn plaintiff. For example, using a knife.
Doing so means you and your lawyer must prove the five elements of negligence: duty, breach of duty, cause, in fact, proximate cause, and harm. Your lawyer may help you meet the elements necessary to prove your claim, build a successful case, and help you receive the monetary award you deserve.
Just as the plaintiff must prove every element of his or her cause of action, the defendant must prove every element of his or her defense. The major defenses to negligence are contributory negligence, comparative negligence, assumption of the risk, and statute of limitations.
Common defenses used in criminal cases include: alibi, automatism, coercion/duress, defense of property, entrapment, ignorance or mistake reverse order pf these two if alpha list is required necessity, and self-defense.
The most common negligence defenses are contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and assumption of risk. This article will discuss all three defenses, when they're used, and how they're established.
Entrapment is a defense to criminal charges on the basis that the defendant only committed the crime because of harassment or coercion by a government official. Without such coercion, the crime would never have been committed.
There are three broad categories of strict liability torts, including possession of wild animals, ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous activity, and strict product liability.
To win a strict liability case, first, you must be injured.Second, you must prove that the defendant's product or actions caused the injury. As long as their conduct resulted in your injuries and the case falls under strict liability rules, you can make a claim for your damages without having to demonstrate fault.
Which of the following is NOT a defense against a strict liability claim? A manufacturer is not liable if a product has been materially modified after is has left the manufacturer's hands and that modification then caused an injury.
The accused had a duty, in most personal injury cases, to act in a way that did not cause you to become injured. The accused committed a breach of that duty. An injury occurred to you. The breach of duty was the proximate cause of your injury.
In both tort and criminal law, strict liability exists when a defendant is liable for committing an action, regardless of what his/her intent or mental state was when committing the action.
Most civil lawsuits for injuries allege the wrongdoer was negligent. To win in a negligence lawsuit, the victim must establish 4 elements: (1) the wrongdoer owed a duty to the victim, (2) the wrongdoer breached the duty, (3) the breach caused the injury (4) the victim suffered damages.
Negligence claims must prove four things in court: duty, breach, causation, and damages/harm. Generally speaking, when someone acts in a careless way and causes an injury to another person, under the legal principle of "negligence" the careless person will be legally liable for any resulting harm.
To successfully defend against a negligence suit, the defendant will try to negate one of the elements of the plaintiff's cause of action. In other words, the defendant introduces evidence that he or she did not owe a duty to the plaintiff; exercised reasonable care; did not cause the plaintiff's damages; and so forth.
A defendant in a personal injury case can use contributory negligence as a defense against liability. If a plaintiff successfully proves a defendant caused injuries due to negligence, the defendant can claim contributory negligence as a defense.
When it comes to criminal cases, there are usually four major criminal defense strategies that criminal attorneys employ: innocence, constitutional violations, self-defense, and insanity.
The material must have been connected to the crime to qualify as real evidence. Therefore, real evidence is arguably the most central piece in a trial as it proves or disproves your case.
This list is sometimes shortened to provide only seven main defense mechanisms, which are denial, displacement, projection, rationalization, reaction formation, repression, and sublimation.
The most commonly recognized of these defenses are self-defense and defense of others. A defendant may argue, for instance, that he did shoot an intruder but did so in self-defense because the intruder was threatening him with a knife.
There are some defenses that are commonly used in response to intentional torts. In this module, we will focus on the defenses of self-defense, defense of property, consent, necessity and justification.
A defense based on excuse focuses on the defendant. An excuse defense claims that even though the defendant committed the criminal act with criminal intent, the defendant should not be responsible for his or her behavior.
Justification is a defense in a criminal case, by which a defendant who committed the acts asserts that because what they did meets certain legal standards, they are not criminally culpable for the acts which would otherwise be criminal.
Failure of Proof – an individual's simplest defense in a criminal prosecution is to claim that the prosecution has not or cannot prove an element of the offense. Mistakes – in certain circ*mstances, an individual's mistake can be used as a defense.
A products liability claim normally involves injury or damage caused by a defective product. Proving the claim usually involves one or more of three basic theories of liability: negligence, breach of contract/warranty, and strict liability.
In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea (Law Latin for "guilty mind") does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus ("guilty act") although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offense.
Strict liability is a legal term that refers to a type of liability that does not require proof of fault. This means that the defendant with a case under strict liability is held responsible for the damages, regardless of whether they were negligent or not.
An affirmative defense is a defense in which the defendant introduces evidence, which, if found to be credible, will negate criminal liability or civil liability, even if it is proven that the defendant committed the alleged acts.
An example of a strict liability claim may be when a consumer buys a product that turns out to be defective or dangerous and is then injured by using it. Another example may be injuries caused by someone's dangerous animal.
What is Strict Products Liability? Strict products liability involves the commercial sale of defective products. In most states, any retail, wholesale, or manufacturer who sells an unreasonably dangerous, defective product that causes injury to a user of the product is strictly liable.
Four elements are required to establish a prima facie case of negligence: the existence of a legal duty that the defendant owed to the plaintiff. defendant's breach of that duty. plaintiff's sufferance of an injury.
The law holds an individual liable without fault when the activity in which she engages satisfies three conditions: (1) it involves a risk of serious harm to people or property; (2) it is so inherently dangerous that it cannot ever be safely undertaken; and (3) it is not usually performed in the immediate community.
Defences. There are two defences a defendant can use where they are found liable for negligence. One will exonerate them completely; the other reduces the level of damages they are liable for. Volenti non fit injuria simply means the voluntary acceptance of the risk of injury.
In medical malpractice cases, causation is usually the most difficult element to prove. To prove causation in any type of negligence action, you must prove two things: 1)The negligent action was the actual cause of harm, and 2)The negligent action was the proximate cause of harm.
The most common of these are provocation, self-defense, defense of another, defense of property, accident, or consent. A defendant also may claim that the plaintiff was negligent and therefore wholly or partly responsible for the damages under the principle of comparative negligence.
Overview. In both tort and criminal law, strict liability exists when a defendant is liable for committing an action, regardless of what his/her intent or mental state was when committing the action. In criminal law, possession crimes and statutory rape are both examples of strict liability offenses.
Negligence thus is most usefully stated as comprised of five, not four, elements: (1) duty, (2) breach, (3) cause in fact, (4) proximate cause, and (5) harm, each of which is briefly here explained.
Proving Negligence. Most civil lawsuits for injuries allege the wrongdoer was negligent. To win in a negligence lawsuit, the victim must establish 4 elements: (1) the wrongdoer owed a duty to the victim, (2) the wrongdoer breached the duty, (3) the breach caused the injury (4) the victim suffered damages.
However, the law must be a crime of public interest for the burden of proof to shift. In a negligence per se case, the defendant would then need to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he did not cause engage in the conduct that led to the plaintiff's injuries.
The most commonly recognized of these defenses are self-defense and defense of others. A defendant may argue, for instance, that he did shoot an intruder but did so in self-defense because the intruder was threatening him with a knife.
Common torts include:assault, battery, damage to personal property, conversion of personal property, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Injury to people may include emotional harm as well as physical harm.
The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: (1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress.
Address: Suite 490 606 Hammes Ferry, Carterhaven, IL 62290
Phone: +8557035444877
Job: Forward IT Agent
Hobby: Fishing, Flying, Jewelry making, Digital arts, Sand art, Parkour, tabletop games
Introduction: My name is Otha Schamberger, I am a vast, good, healthy, cheerful, energetic, gorgeous, magnificent person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.
We notice you're using an ad blocker
Without advertising income, we can't keep making this site awesome for you.
