The Strict Liability Theory
Introduction

Strict Liability in simplistic terms can imply an individual or company being liable for their deeds, conducts and outcomes that result in damages to others. A personal complaint of injury for a strict liability case is not as a consequence of a foreplanned action or careless deed (Boatright, 2012). The respondent's action should have triggered strict liability and that the complainant suffered harm. In fact, one cannot understand what strict liability in the criminal law means, in the same token understand why it is considered unorthodox and morally dyslogistic. The respondent's responsibility and blameworthiness, or mental fault should be evaluated and, more particularly, the usual relevance of a respondent's mistakes in determining this error. Furthermore, strict liability is a form of responsibility that may occur in either a criminal or a civil context. Equally important to note, strict liability causes an individual to legally answerable for the loss and damage that his or her actions caused because of his or her deeds of omissions irrespective of incrimination. For strict liability to be induced and used in a lawsuit, proving fault or negligence is not the main desire but rather showing the danger to the complainant (Martin, 2014).
Strict liability flows not from carelessness, but from the v option to conduct the activity at all. Strict liability does not base on a fault in the time-honored sense of the term, but on the policy choice to place losses from the activity on the actor rather than on its victims. The respondent, it is said, “acts at own peril” in conducting such activities. Regardless of how much effort one takes to avoid injuries to others, they are held strictly liable. Granted that such injuries result; hence, strict liability means the blameworthiness without fault (Morrison, 1979).

Strict liability applications in Law and Ethics

Strict liability is a common occurrence whereby a group of people engages in inherently dangerous activities (Boatright, 2012). Many factors come into play that a court will consider and make use of so as to ascertain if an activity is characteristically dangerous. For instance, the movement from one place to another of heavy explosives, or highly flammable chemical compounds, and their subsequent storage are all dangerous activities. Nonetheless, some other activities may seem dangerous, but do not match up to the extent of justifying the application of strict liability. In such cases, the law will consider many factors, including the limits of the anticipated harm attributed to those activities. If the experience shows that the activity indeed has been habitually dangerous, then Strict Liability may be applied. Otherwise, it may not be justified
An engineering company using a blasting technique in one of it is quarry sites may ensure sufficiently, and appropriate safety precautions for its characteristically dangerous activities in an area with a relatively small population. On the other hand, the blasting activities may be determinately dangerous if done in a crowded city. If such a company, is faced with executing the dangerous activities in a significantly populated city, the group will handle any harm under strict liability theory. It would be of little significance if the blasting were adequately supervised ensuring the safest possible technique. Ultimately, if an activity is characteristically dangerous, as long a complainant suffers an injury as owing to the behavior, a strict liability action supersedes any defense (Martin, 2014). In summary, strict liability applies in four areas including harm caused by animals, abnormally dangerous activity (ultra-hazardous activity), products liability, and vicarious liability (Cantú & Charles, 2002).

Harm Caused by Animals

The owner of a dangerous or wild animal is surely liable for any harm that it causes given the following. First, the victim did not disorient the animal in such a way that led to the violent behavior and the harm resulted from the dangerous predilection that is a common attribute of this type of animal. Lastly, the owner knew or should have recognized the animal’s specific solicitude (Alabama injury law advisor, 2009). In a case involving a domestic animal, the owner is most certainly liable only if he has prior knowledge that his animal has dangerous behaviors and mannerisms. The “First bite” rule states that the owner is accountable for the second occasion that his animal bites somebody, but not the first instance it bites.

Aberrantly Dangerous Activity

Strict liability is a certainty for all such activities that involve more or less so substantial risk of harm in their functionality and performance. If the respondent engages in any array of activities and fortuitously and non-negligently causes harm to the complainant, he or she is strictly liable. Must be remembered, this is subject to a few limitations that are beyond the jurisdiction of Strict Liability Theory. Essentially, abnormally dangerous activities include all activities related to nuclear reactors, explosives, crop spraying and many others (Cantú, 2002). At present, for ascertaining the extent to which an activity is abnormally dangerous, the courts focus their emphasis on the following factors. Firstly, the high degree of risk of harm to person or property. Secondly, the attributable gravity of the damage to the activity and whether a party responsible cannot perform the activity with complete safety. Moreover, the limits to which the activity is not a matter of common usage and applicability of activity to the place where it is carried on.

Products Liability

Product liability refers to a legal jargon that states that a seller, distributor, or manufacturer of a defective product is answerable to a person negatively harmed by that product. It markedly confirms that irrespective of the fact that the respondent did everything within their potential to ensure that the defect never happened (Boeschen, 2015). In a concerted effort to recover damages, a complainant may sue the respondent under the following three theories: negligence theory, warranty theory, and strict products liability.
As has been noted in the preceding chapters, "Strict" Liability implies that the respondent’s behavior has no significance. Altogether in proving damage or injury, the respondent is in vogue conduct is essential. To demonstrate that a respondent is liable, he or she should have behaved in a manner that does not meet the conduct habitual of the average, reasonable person. Although this may be true, strict product liability rules deal away with the evaluation of whether the respondent’s conduct met a certain nominal or expected standard (Morrison, 2010). The reason for the product liability rule was to replace the commonly used negligence rules. It was on the condition that complainants, who were adversely affected by defective products yet clearly adhered to the manufacturer instruction, could not win their cases.
The reason for this occurrence is was that it was difficult to prove that the manufacturer acted below the industry standard and that nothing else caused the defect. Courts and state legislatures observed that it was an impartial and bad public policy to condemn innocent complainants to losses although the products were defective, so the enactment of strict products liability rules into law.
To win a Strict Product Liability case, the Complainant should prove beyond a reasonable doubt some factors. Among these include firstly, a product should be sold in an unreasonably dangerous state or condition that was not noticeable. Secondly, the seller should have anticipated and scheduled that the product would reach the target market without any alterations and deteriorations in the quality of the product. Lastly, he should demonstrate the complainant or the complainant’s property was because of the defective product hurt or damaged respectively (Morrison, 2010).
The types of product defects are predominantly three namely manufacturing defects, design defects, and inadequate warnings (Morrison, 2010). A particular product bears the manufacturing defect sold to the complainant, for example, typically if something went wrong in the manufacturing process of the product, and the products carried the problem. In a like manner, a design defect occurs for the entire product line (manufactured utilizing the stipulated layout) sold in an unreasonably dangerous state for the intended use. Lastly, strict liability applies to a respondent’s failure to warn the target users in a timely way about less-than-obvious risks emanating from the utilization of the product (Gima, 2014).
In some cases, the taking to the court of manufacturers, distributors, and retailers can take place for strict liability. Manufacturers are chiefly the respondents, notably because they have the responsibility for manufacturing the parts or assembling the products. On the other hand, distributors and retailers may or separately be sued for strict product liability. It implies that the distributor may receive a product directly from a manufacturer and subsequently pass it on to a retailer. After that, the retailer may sell it to a consumer without any alteration in the product. A complainant consumer will be free to sue all the three parties. This rule ensures the compensation of the clients even though they cannot prove who in the distribution network handled the product defect. The complainant upon suing the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer, the onus will be on the respondent to prove who in the delivery chain was explicitly responsible. After that, the respondent will be entitled to recover the amount required to pay to the complainant (Morrison, 2010).
Vicarious Liability
Vicarious liability involves holding a person responsible for shortfalls or failures or inactions of another person (Kidner, 2012). In the application of vicarious liability to a workplace scenario, it is found that employers carry the weight of the deeds of their workers, in circumstances when the deeds occurred during their work. A person may be liable for the torts committed by others because of his relationship with them. Vicarious liability often arises in cases of employer-employee relationships, joint ventures, automobile owner and driver, and family relationships. The actual implication of the rule of vicarious liability is to blow the whistle on the wrongful conduct to a third party, considered to handle the employer’s actions. Of significance to this doctrine is the underlying key motivating factors of the need to find a respondent who can compensate the complainant (Kidner, 2012).
In the employer-employee relationship, under the rule of respondent superior, an employer is liable for the unlawful acts that his worker commits while executing his duties in the scope of his employment (Kidner, 2012). An employee is defined conventionally to be a worker who is governed and controlled by his employer. Distinctly, an independent contractor is such a worker not subjected to the control of the employer. This person makes an independent decision about how to execute the work. For this reason, an employer is not liable for the unlawful acts committed by an independent contractor. Exceptions to this do exist. They include whenever the work involves abnormally dangerous activities or the prevailing public policies deliberate that the duty is non-delegable, for instance, the employer’s duty to make the workplace reasonably safe. Finally, if the employer without prior knowledge selects an independent contractor who is incompetent at the execution of the assigned duties (Kidner, 2012).

The scope of employment includes the detailed list of all functions and responsibilities to be executed by the employee. These actions and practices are carried out with the sole aim of, at least in part, to advance the employer’s business aspirations and interests. Acts that an employer clearly or expressly prohibits are not exclusively outside the scope of employment. Rather the court is mandated to consider both the fact that they were prohibited and whether the employer benefited. Likewise, his or her instruction to use care in avoiding harm to others will not suffice to relieve him or her of liability if the employee was not careful.
Travelling between work and home is outside the scope of employment, thus, for example, the employer is not liable if a commuting worker negligently runs over a pedestrian. On the other hand, “Frolic and Detour” during business trips occurs when an employee makes a prong for personal reasons while on a company trip and causes damage. Courts will hold an employer liable if the prong is reasonably foreseeable. One of the factors to consider in foreseeability is the distance of the detour. The employer is liable for intentional torts if the worker did them for the benefit of the employer’s business. However, if the employee acted for personal reasons, for example, racism, then the employer is not liable. Some courts allow liability for intentional torts only if they are reasonably foreseeable by the employer (Kidner, 2012).
A joint venture entails a business arrangement leading to an agreement whereby different parties resolve to develop, for a stated period, a new business entity with an input from all the parties of equity. The parties have overall control over the enterprise and, as a result, partake of the revenues, expenses, and assets. All members forming part of a joint venture are vicariously liable for the unlawful acts of each other. Of much significance is the following; firstly, in the mutuality of control, each member is duty bound to have an equal say regarding the execution of activities. Secondly, agreement, the parties all should be acting in unison by some express or implied agreement. Moreover, finally, common monetary purpose, the respective parties should have a common objective of a profit-making nature.
Regarding an automobile owner and driver, an automobile owner is not vicariously liable for the behavior of another person who drives his car. Nonetheless, the rule has some exceptions that include the following. Foremost, in cases of auto consent statutes, it passes vicarious liability to the car owner for the unlawful conduct of any person driving the car with the owner’s consent. In this case, the driver should have acted reasonably within the scope of what the owner agreed to. Supplementary to automatic consent, family purpose doctrine, holds the owner of a family car vicariously liable for the unlawful acts. The acts include those committed by close family members or household members driving with express or implied acknowledgment (Boatright, 2012). Family purpose occurs each time a member of the family benefits from the use of the car.
Families consist essentially of the parents and the children. Essentially, the doctrine of vicarious liability states that parents are not vicariously liable for the lassitude and inattention of their children (Boatright, 2012). The exceptions include if the parent was the negligent party and alternatively if the child was acting like a “family agent.”

Addressing and avoiding strict liability

Strict liability encourages those who specifically engage in high-risk enterprises to avoid any unnecessary costs arising in one of the following ways. Firstly, for the fear of the risk posed, the liability encourages actors including corporations, governments, organizations, and multinational companies to forgo these radically risky activities entirely. It is given the fact that it makes the actor pay for all damages, injuries, and indemnification. Strict liability encourages the actors to consider alternative ways of achieving the same goal (Boatright, 2012). Accordingly, imposing strict liability will consequently lead to less high-risk activity and reduced losses from it. Consequently, actors who conduct abnormally dangerous activities should make up for even blameless injuries. Hence, strict liability instigates them to reduce the cost of accidents by ensuring extra safety precautions.
In effect, the threat of responsibility correspondingly makes high-risk activities safer, despite the fact that it cannot make them completely safe.When all is said and done, economic analysts and courts put forth a point of view that the party that can easily spread the losses should take them (Boatright, 2012). The costs of the enterprise cover the losses by adding the expenses of remuneration and compensation for accidents resulting from the activity to the price of the product. In essence, strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities is cantilevered by this policy.
Strict Product Liability is not Automatic Liability

It does not only matter that a complainant is obligated to validate less in a strict product liability action as compared with other negligence actions. There is also need to prove the respondent’s responsibility. Circumstances exist that lead to the failure of the case or ensuring the successful defense of the defendant. These include the fact that the complainant used the product in a way that he or she knew or envisaged that could lead to injury. Alternatively, the complainant used the product albeit knowing of the defect. Also, the complainant’s frivolous and directionless actions contributed to the injury, including using the product for a different function. In the rear, a third party or some other person or unexpected event interacted with the product, for this reason, the product was ultimately not the actual cause of the injury.
Conclusion
The above discussion shows that given specific areas of the law, it can be difficult to envisage the use of strict liability. If the principles that allow strict liability to be used were not in existence, it would have meant that the prosecution could not put the charge in many cases. With this in mind, small offenses like speeding would be difficult to find the required justification to find the respondent guilty. Respondents would continuously commit these types of offenses. Altogether strict liability enables actions in this regards (Picket, 2012).

References

Boatright, J. R. (2012). Ethics and the Conduct of Business (7th ed). Prentice Hall PTR
Boeschen, C. (2015). Strict Product Liability Laws - AllLaw.com. Retrieved September 27, 2015, from http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/strict-product-liability-laws.html
Cantú, Charles E. (2002). Distinguishing the Concept of Strict Liability for Ultra-Hazardous Activities from Strict Liability Under Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts: Two Parallel Lines of Reasoning that Should Never Meet. University of Akron Law Review (University of Akron School of Law). Retrieved May 2, 2012.
Car Wrecks and Livestock - Alabama Injury Law Advisor. (2009). Retrieved September 28, 2015, from http://www.alabamainjurylawadvisor.com/automobile-accidents/alabamas-stupidest-laws---car-wrecks-and-livestock/
Kidner, R. (2012). Vicarious Liability. Casebook on Torts, 216-236. Retrieved from http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/outline-torts-law/imputed-negligence/vi
M. Morrison, S. (2010). Products Liability in Montana: At Last a Word on Defense. 40(2), 328-338. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1420&context=mlr
Martin, M., Gima, P., & Holloway, C. (2014). Strict liability. Retrieved September 27, 2015, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability
Picket, J. (2012). The imposition of strict liability for certain criminal offenses is a necessary evil in the fight to protect the public from harm. Retrieved from http://www.peterjepson.com/law/A2-2 Jonathan Wight.htm
Products Liability in Montana (1979). At Last a Word on Defense. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1420&context=mlr
Strict Liability. (n.d.) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved September 27, 2015, from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Strict+Liability