Top Law Schools

So assump of risk, contributory negligence are defenses to negligence.

Are there any defenses for Strict liability?

most common one: type of harm is not the one that made the activity abnormally dangerous. bomb rolls on your foot and your toe gets hurt is not SL.

i think some jx have AOR, like if you see "BLASTING AHEAD" and you know what it means but just mosey on in your damages can get reduced

but if you negligently fail to see the sign, they are still SL. tough luck for them, no CN

thederangedwang wrote:So assump of risk, contributory negligence are defenses to negligence.

Are there any defenses for Strict liability?

Depends on what the liability is for. If it is strict product liability then assumption of risk, product misuse, and sometimes contributory negligence can be defenses. Ryland v. Fletcher allowed the defense of "act of god" for unnatural things escaping land. Like the poster above said strict liability is also limited to the type of harm that makes the activity or product dangerous.

also, "open and obvious" and self defense are major defenses to SL

open and obvious is when the dangerous behavior is so negligent that any reasonable tortfeasor would realize or compehend that the risks involved in the activity would constitute some kind of damages and/or remedies

self defense such as blow up your dynamite to prevent someone from doing a dignitary tort to you

thederangedwang wrote:So assump of risk, contributory negligence are defenses to negligence.

Are there any defenses for Strict liability?

1) It wasn't me, it was some other bro/company.
2) I confess, I'm guilty whether or not I really am, but you weren't damaged.
3) Policy question--i.e. three factors against strict liability.
4) We are judgment proof.


Edited for politeness. Tongue-in-cheek, and I wouldn't necessarily enter these on a law school exam (haha), but some element of truth at least IMO when taken in aggregate... Good luck.