|
In law, strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his/her acts and omissions regardless of culpability (including fault in criminal law terms, typically the presence of ''mens rea''). Under strict liability, there is no requirement to prove fault, negligence or intention. Strict liability is prominent in tort law (especially product liability), corporations law, and criminal law. For analysis of the pros and cons of strict liability as applied to product liability, the most important strict liability regime, see product liability. ==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. It discourages reckless behavior and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. It also has the effect of simplifying and thereby expediting court decisions in these cases. A classic example of strict liability is the owner of a tiger rehabilitation center. No matter how strong the tiger cages are, if an animal escapes and causes damage and injury, the owner is held liable. Another example is a contractor hiring a demolition subcontractor that lacks proper insurance. If the subcontractor makes a mistake, the contractor is strictly liable for any damage that occurs. A more everyday example is that of a passenger on public transport who was unable to purchase a valid ticket for the journey due to extraneous circumstances, such as being unable to purchase a ticket for whatever reason. Under strict liability it does not matter if the ticket machine was broken, or the train was early, or there were no staff at the counter. The legal responsibility for holding a valid ticket falls on the passenger and the passenger should not have travelled without one regardless of the circumstances. 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.〔''Hinckley v. La Mesa R.V. Center, Inc.'', 158 Cal. App.3d 630, 205 Cal. Rptr. 22 (1984)〕 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. The doctrine's most famous advocates were Learned Hand, Benjamin Cardozo, and Roger J. Traynor. Under English and Welsh law, in cases where tortious liability is strict, the defendant will often be liable only for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his act or omission (as in nuisance). 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''. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Strict liability」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|