Trace The Historical Source Of Strict Liability

In common law system, strict liability contains all of the liabilities apart from intentional liability and negligence. The reason why this rule is called"strict liability", is that the rule is stricter than other forms of liabilities, i.e. intentional liability and negligence. Under this rule, the plaintiff does not have to take the burdern of proving the fault of the defendant, and that the defendant claims that he has taken his utmost care to prevent the loss from happening is not a legal defense. So far, there is not an accurate and unanimous defination for strict liability, though the insights of that are various.Professors of continental law system explain the concept by comparing strict liability with some similar concepts of continental law system, such as liability without fault, dangerous liability, supervisor liability and objective liability.Some scholars of our country adopt the overlap-and-competition way to study strict liability. Those who agree with the professors of continental law system, think that strict liability equals liability without fault or dangerous liability. While because of the differences in legal thinking, others chose to do research on the cases and the principles of common law, so as to grasp the profile of strict liability from where the rule arose from and develops.Strict liability develops from fault liability, which is the result of fault liability's advancing with the times. But the two principles base on different theories. The fault liability is to make those who intently or negligently did something wrong pay for what they did. While the strict liability is to make people pay for the damages they caused, however much careful they were to prevent the loss from happening, because strict liability does not rely on the moral culpability of the defendant, but relies on public welfare.With the development of strict liability, there are more and more fields which apply for the principle. Harms caused by animals, abnomally dangerous activities and defective products are the three main fields which strict liability applies to.Harms caused by animals is the ancient field that strict liability applies to. Since the fourteenth century, the English common law rule has apparently always been that the owner of livestock or other animals is liable for property damage caused by them, if they trespass upon another's land. This liability existed even though the owner exercised utmost care to prevent the animals from escaping. In most American jurisdictions, this English rule of strict liability (with expection for dogs and cats) applies. The animals are divided into two categories, the wild animal and the domestic animal. A domesticated species is one which is by custom devoted to the service of mankind in the community in question. A person who keeps a wild animal is strictly liable for all damage done by it, provided that the damage results from a dangerous propensity that is typical of the species in question. But injures caused by a domestic animal such as a cat and a dog, do not give rise to strict liability, except where the owner knows or has reason to know of the animal's dangerous characteristics.The path to strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities was begun in the English case of Rylands v. Fletcher. American slowly adopted this rule, which has in fact been extended to include most activities that are extremely dangerous. The abnormally dangerous activity is one which can not be carried out safely, even with reasonable care. Whether the defendant has made non-natural use of land is a kind of out-of-date standard to judge abnormally dangerous activities, because most of the activities nowadays have nothing to do with the land. Usually the judges will refer to the standard listed in Restatement (2nd), when they are supposed to decide which activity is abnormally dangerous, with the consideration of the feature of their local economy.Products liability is the fastest-growing, and probably now the most economically significant branch of tort law. The English case Donoghue v. Stevenson was the first case in this field. In the case, products liability was not mentioned, but it is believed that the dangerous object liability used in the case, means the same thing as the products liability does. Virtually all states in American apply the doctrine of strict product liability. Under that doctrine, a seller of a product is liable without fault for personal injuries caused by the product if the product is sold in a defective condition, Restatement (2nd) requires the defective condition is unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer, while Restatement (3rd) does not. Manufacturing defect, design defect and warning defect are the three forms of defect. Strict product liability only applies for manufacturing defect. In a manufacturing defect, a particular instance of the product is more dangerous than all the others, because the prodct deviated from the intended design.Each liability should have limitations, strict liability is of no exception. Again limitations vary from the fields that are applied strict liability. The defenses for animal trespass are the wholly fault of the plaintiff, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff and the trespass was done when the livestock straying from a highway so long as its presence on the highway was lawful. The defenses for non-trespass animal concludes the defenses talked above, other defenses are the otherwise condition of the liability arises, such as the owner doesn't know or does not have a reason to know the dangerous characteristics possessed by his animal. Act of a third party is an auguable defense. These rules can be found both in Animal Act (1971) and in Restatement (2nd).Abnormally sensitive of the plaintiff, unreasonable assumption of risk, and the unaware and lawful conduct are also permitted defenses as is stated in American Law Restatement (2nd). However, default of the claimant, act of third party and act of God are not legal defenses.The producer will have a defense if he can show that the defect was attributable to compliance with a legal requirement; that he did not at any point supply the product to another, as, for example, in a situation where it was put into circulation after being stolen from him; that the defect did not exist when he parted with it; and in the case of a component supplier, that the defect was contained not in his component but in the final product, and that it was the result either of the design of the final product or of compliance with instructions from the manufacturer of that product. Much more controversial is the so-called"state of the art"or development-risks defense.The conclusion has been drawn due to the discussion above. The doctrine of strict liability distributes the loss to the whole group of people involving in the field, so as to lessen the impact to the people suffering the loss. The doctrine meets the security needs of human beings and helps the society to stay stable and homony. Strict liability simplifies plaitiff's burden of proof, makes it easier to apply, which are the unique merits of it, that can not be replaced by any principle else.