strict liability
**(Contrast with general intent and specific intent )**
Overview
In both tort and criminal law , strict liability exists when a defendant is liable for committing an action, regardless of their intent or mental state when committing the action. In criminal law, possession crimes and statutory rape are both examples of strict liability offenses. Thus, for example, a person commits statutory rape when they have sexual relations with a minor, regardless of whether they sincerely believed the minor was old enough to give legal consent .
Strict Liability as Applied to Criminal Law
In criminal law, strict liability is mostly limited to minor offenses. Criminal law classifies strict liability as one of five possible mentes reae (plural of mens rae, meaning mental states) that a defendant may have in pursuit of the crime. The other four are:
- acting knowingly,
- acting purposely,
- acting with recklessness, and
- acting with negligence.
Outside of statutory rape, strict liability typically results in more lenient punishments than the other four mentes reae. Generally, a criminal defendant's awareness of what they are doing would not negate a strict liability mens rea (for example, being in possession of drugs will typically result in criminal liability, regardless of whether the defendant knows that he is in possession of the drugs).
Strict Liability as Applied to Tort Law
In tort law, there are two broad categories of activities for which a plaintiff may be held strictly liable:
- Possession of certain animals, and
- abnormally dangerous activities .
Additionally, in the area of torts known as products liability , there is a sub-category known as strict products liability which applies when a defective product for which an appropriate defendant holds responsibility causes injury to an appropriate plaintiff.
Controversy
The classification of strict liability has not been without controversy. Some scholars oppose the concept for reasons commonly related to the unfairness of a defendant being held liable for something unrelated to the defendant's intentions (or lack thereof). Others support the classification, with some reasoning that the more lenient punishments which accompany strict liability offenses mitigate the potential unfairness related to the classification.
For further reading on the topic, see this William & Mary Law Review note ; see also this Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository article ; see also this Michigan Law Review note .
[Last reviewed in October of 2024 by the Wex Definitions Team ]
Keywords
Wex