Question

Explain what “strict liability” is in the context of a tort. Why shouldn’t all torts be based upon the concept of strict liability? Explain.

Answer 1

Strict liability
In normal case a person is not liable for the consequences flowing from an activity if there is abscence of fault or criminal intention (mens rea). But under the doctrine of strict liability a person is liable for the consequence happened as result of an activity even if there is absence of fault or criminal intend. Sctrict liability is also known as 'no fault' liability. Under the doctrine of strict liability, if any activity injured the peron or property, the people engaged with the activity shall be liable without considering how careful they were and despite of their intent.

product liabilty, abnormally dangerous activities (eg. blasting), ownership of wild animals are the situations where the strict liability generally applies. Strict liability imposed on such activities because those who engage with such activities have duty to restrain from causing harm.

*Why all torts are not based upon the concept of strict liability?
All torts are not based on strict liability because adoption of many torts to strict liability is critisezed as immoral, inefficient and inconsistent with ordinary tort doctrine. All tort except the doctrine of strict liablity is fact a fault-based tort (tort of negligence) and intentional torts.
In the present legal thought the intention and fault by the accused is much important to declare him as liable for any harm done by him. Today the Strict liability is losing its acceptance largely in the modern world.