Pa-165 Unit9 Negligence vs. Strict Liability

Christopher Brightbill

PA 165-02

May 2, 2011

Negligence v. Strict Liability, a Distinction

In civil law the majority of torts are centered on negligent acts, however the subject of strict liability bears as much weight and is occasionally associated with negligence. There are key differences when discussing negligence actions and strict liability actions. The most readily difference lies in the need for fault. In a negligence action fault is necessary to establish liability for the act. This of course is the opposite when discussing strict or absolute liability, were fault is not a necessary element to show liability. It is not as simple as this though. The key differences between negligence and strict liability can be distinguished by comparing the elements of each, the defenses and their applicability availed to each, and through examples of the two.

The elements of negligence must include the showing of a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, a casual relation between the breach and actual harm, and damages. A duty exists if it is foreseeable that harm would occur to someone if the defendant did not show the care a reasonably prudent person would. A breach of that duty occurs when the defendant does not meet the standard of care of a reasonably prudent person. In Judge Hand’s approach a breach occurs when the likelihood and severity of a harm outweigh the burden of precautions. (29 J. Legal Stud. 19)

To illustrate this consider a restaurant owner whose restaurant has a broken step. The owner fails to warn his patrons of the broken step and a patron is injured. The restaurant owner is liable for damages if the patron brings suit. Applying the elements of negligence, one can see that the duty owed to the patrons by the owner was to prevent an injury, caused by the broken step. A reasonably prudent owner would not want his potential customers to be injured on his property by his neglect. The next element is causation, is...