Research On Strict Liability In Tort Law Of Common Law System

Strict liability is a hypersensitive topic nowadays in tort law. Whether to accept strict liability as a responsibility principle has been disputed in theory in China. However, what on earth is strict liability? Up to now, no scholar can give an answer expressly.Traced to its source, strict liability came of a case in common law——Rylands v. Fletcher. In this case, the reservoir of defendant's burst and destroyed the coal mine of plaintiff's. During the whole process, the defendant wasn't at fault. The plaintiff brought an accusation against the defendant for loss. Towards this easy case, there was no proper responsibility principle settling, so judges had different standpoints after a long time consideration. Finally, this case which to be an example for subsequent cases had been ended by a new responsibility principle——strict liability. At the same time, being a principle to balance the benefit between the parties, it was a measure for judges to deal with similar cases. This paper chose a way of description to figure strict liability rather than defining it. Based on the inscapes and absolutions, the paper provided a frame and a meaning for its application. There are two inscapes in strict liability. One is the existence of the similar case before, and another is occurrence of the damages. In other words, if only there were before-mentioned two inscapes, we could be able to consider using strict liability. While all of the responsibility principles have their own absolutions except absolute liability, strict liability doesn't make an exception obviously. The absolutions of strict liability contains: consent of victim, negligence of plaintiff, act of God and intent of the third party. When these instances occur, the defendant needn't bear the liability. Of course, different types of cases have different absolutions, so we don't mention it here.Today, strict liability has developed for nearly two hundred years, made for maturity and had its own area to apply. The types of usage extends from ground to damage due to product liability,animals,blasting,spreading dangerous matter,network and labour compensation, with Rylands v. Fletcher,and later Greenman v.Yuha Power Products Inc.,Mirvahedy v. Henley,Baker v. Snell,Spano v. Perini Corp,Langan v. Valicopters,Playboy Enterprises Inc.v. Frena for judges consulting with. Thereinto, Rylands v. Fletcher made strict liability as a responsibility principle come into being in common law; Greenman v.Yuha Power Products Inc.established the status for strict liability in product liability in USA; Mirvahedy v. Henley used the <1971 Animal Act> and applied strict liability to this area; Baker v. Snell made judges question the absolution of intent of the third party; Spano v. Perini Corp was the first case settled by strict liability about blasting, because judges would be inclined to latter without question when there were conflict between inflicter and victim; Langan v. Valicopters was the outset of strict liability in spreading dangerous matter; Playboy Enterprises Inc.v.Frena introduced the strict liability to a rising area——network; Workers'compensation statutes protected worker more in tort law……It is obvious that strict liability has developed to be a mature system in common law.Accordingly, whether shall we use for reference and apply in practice are questions in front of scholars. Strict liability is similar with liability without fault in civil law in many ways, such as they are especial responsibility liability and operated strictly. But they are different in both types of cases and necessity of fault. So the acceptance of strict liability is indispensable and inevitable. We can demonstrate this view by Rylands v. Fletcher. Neither < General Rules of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China >126,83,nor < Environment Protection Law of the People's Republic of China > can settle the problem beautifully. To protect both plaintiff and defendant, we should find a new way to get the same result like the common law. Although people in different societies have different value and custom, it doesn't implied that they should hold different judge to inosculate their societies. The worthiness of law is communicated. So, Rylands v. Fletcher can't be judged ideally by existing law, and strict liability is still the best choice. In conclusion, we ought to accept strict liability as a responsibility liability towards such case and its types to apply, which can help forcing the development of tort law through the transplantation of law.