Strict Liability vs. Negligence: Key Differences

Negligence requires the plaintiff to prove the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care — the defendant did something wrong. Strict liability imposes liability regardless of fault — the defendant may have acted perfectly reasonably and is still liable. The difference is whether fault matters.

Strict liability is the exception, not the rule. It applies in three main categories:

1. Abnormally dangerous activities: Activities that create a foreseeable risk of serious harm that cannot be eliminated through reasonable care (e.g., blasting, storing explosives, keeping wild animals).

2. Product liability: Manufacturers and sellers of defective products are strictly liable for injuries caused by those defects (manufacturing defects, design defects, and failure to warn).

3. Animal liability: Owners of wild animals are strictly liable for injuries. Owners of domestic animals are strictly liable if they knew of the animal's dangerous propensity.

For most torts, the plaintiff must prove all four elements of negligence:

1. Duty: Defendant owed a duty of reasonable care
2. Breach: Defendant failed to meet that standard
3. Causation: Defendant's breach actually and proximately caused the harm
4. Damages: Plaintiff suffered actual harm

The key element is breach — this is where the fault inquiry happens. Did the defendant act as a reasonable person would have under the circumstances?

The plaintiff's burden of proof is significantly different:

Under negligence: Plaintiff must prove defendant was at fault (failed to exercise reasonable care).
Under strict liability: Plaintiff only needs to prove the activity/product caused the injury — no need to show the defendant was careless.

On an exam, if you see an abnormally dangerous activity or a defective product, raise strict liability first, then analyze negligence as an alternative theory.

Negligence defenses: Contributory negligence, comparative fault, assumption of risk

Strict liability defenses: More limited. Comparative fault may apply in some jurisdictions. Assumption of risk applies. Contributory negligence is generally NOT a defense to strict liability (unless the plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably encountered the danger).

This difference in available defenses is frequently tested on exams.