Definition for Strict Liability

A person is strictly liable for harm that results from abnormally dangerous activities. (Goodwin v. Reilley (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 86, 90.) A variety of factors are used in determining whether a certain activity is abnormally dangerous. (See Edwards v. Post Transportation Co. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 980, 984.)

“Using the term ‘abnormally dangerous’ rather than ‘ultrahazardous,’ the Restatement sets forth six factors which are to be considered. They are:

1. existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land or chattels of others;
2. likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great;
3. inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care;
4. extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage;
5. inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on; and
6. extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes. (Rest.2d Torts, § 520.)”

(Edwards v. Post Transportation Co. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 980, 985)

“As explained in comment (f) to section 520, the several factors are to be considered together; establishment of one factor alone is usually not sufficient to categorize an activity; several factors will ordinarily be required.” (Id.)

"Strict liability is essentially defined as 'liability imposed without regard to the defendant's negligence or intent to harm. [S]trict liability signifies liability without fault, or at least without any proof of fault." (Cox v. City of Dallas, Tex., 256 F.3d 281, 290 n. 16 (5th Cir.2001)

Recovery Under Strict Liability

In Jimenez v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 473, the court applied the economic loss rule in the strict liability context: “[R]ecovery under the doctrine of strict liability is limited solely to "physical harm to person or property.” (Id. at 482 citing Seely v. White Motor Co.(1965) 63 Cal.2d 9, 18.) “Damages available under strict products liability do not include economic loss, which includes 'damages for inadequate value, costs of repair and replacement of the defective product or consequent loss of profits -- without any claim of personal injury or damages to other property...” (Id.)

For Example, Strict Liability and Dog Bites

“A common law strict liability cause of action may [] be maintained if the owner of a domestic animal that bites or injures another person knew or had reason to know of the animal’s vicious propensities.” (Priebe v. Nelson (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1112, 1115.) The harm must be caused by the vicious propensity the owner knew of or had reason to know of. (Hillman v. Garcia-Ruby (1955) 44 Cal.2d 625, 626.)

Civil Code §3342(a) provides, “(a) The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. A person is lawfully upon the private property of such owner within the meaning of this section when he is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when he is on such property upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner.”