Question

You have one hour. The system does not accept any file after the deadline. The accuracy of your ideas and the way you structure them will be given more weight than your language proficiency. Use your own ideas and sentences. This is a closed-book exam. Format of the script: handwritten.

QUESTION:

What is the main difference between strict liability and negligence liability in tort? Explain with the help of some examples.

Answer 1

Strict Liability
A tort doctrine that makes manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers, and others in the chain of distribution of a defective product liable for the damages caused by the defect, irrespective of fault. (Liability without fault).

Negligence Liability ( Unintentional Tort)
A doctrine that says a person is liable for harm that is the foreseeable consequence of his or her actions

Strict liability is the imposition of liability without fault for damages on the defendant. This is different from negligence as the burden of proof is not placed on the plaintiff to prove that the damages were a result of the defendant’s negligence, only that damages occurred and the defendant is responsible. In strict liability, there is the assumption that the manufacturer or supplier was aware of the defect before it reached the plaintiff.
had undertaken. For example

Tom has a storage room where he stores highly flammable propane tanks. Due to lightening the tanks caught fire. The fire damages Jack's property. Although lightening is act of God and is not fault of Tom but he is liable under the rules of strict liability simply because Jack suffered harm.

Duty of Care

Injured people can initiate lawsuits for negligence against business owners who have not properly exercised a duty of care; nevertheless, strict liability cases don't require demonstration of a duty of care.

Example If a customer slips in your departmental store because of bottle of oil leaked which caused the oil to spill on floor and dur to this the customer got injured then in this case you are at default because you were negligent.

In contrast, strict liability cases are based on the understanding that certain activities, such as selling or manufacturing defective products, are so dangerous that no level of care can render them safe; therefore, any injuries resulting from such activities will automatically be compensated by the party responsible for the dangerous activity.

Causation

Business owners are only liable for negligence if their failure to carry out their duty caused the injury; for strict liability cases against manufacturers or sellers of defective products, the injury must result from the defect.

Example If your grocery store is properly kept but a customer slips because he was not mindful of his steps then in this case you have not breached duty of care and you cannot be held negligent. The injury was caused due to customer's negligence. If you make ceramic mugs, but a defect in the glazing causes the mug to be susceptible to shattering, you are strictly liable for injuries caused to people when the mug shatters; however, you are not liable for an injury caused by drinking a beverage that was too hot from the mug because the injury did not result from the glazing defect.

Defenses

Even if you have acted negligently, you can raise certain defenses to explain your behavior and avoid liability to the injured person; however, strict liability claims have no defense. One defense to negligence, called assumption of the risk, excuses liability if the injured party should have understood that her actions would result in injury but carried out the act in disregard of the risk.

Example A bottle of fruit juice spilled in the area of your floor and you took necessary steps like blocking the area with rope. Putting a Danger sign warning people from entering that area. But even then a customer broke the rope and entered and got injured then you are not held liable. You can defend against liability by stating that the customer assumed the risk by disregarding the warnings you put in place.

Partial Liability

The law sometimes holds you partially liable for injuries resulting from your negligence; however, strict liability cases always result in 100 percent liability. Under the concept of comparative negligence, an injured party can only recover monetary damages for the percentage of the injury caused by your negligence.

Example If the court decides that the customer who slipped in your store can be held only 20% responsible for not noticing the spilled fruit juice then customer will recover only 80 percent of the total amount of damages awarded by the court.