What is strict liability, and when does it apply to an injury claim?

In the UK, most accident claims are fault-based - meaning that your injury lawyer must prove that the defendant's negligence caused your injury for you to win your claim.

Usually the elements that need to be proved are that a duty of care existed between defendant and claimant and that the injury or loss sustained was as a direct result of the defendant's breach of that duty.

There are three further factors to consider when establishing duty of care:

  • That the harm was reasonably foreseeable.
  • That the defendant and claimant were in a relationship of ‘proximity'.
  • That it is fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the defendant.

Is it always necessary to prove the defendant was at fault?

Not all compensation claims follow this fault principle. Some are based on "strict liability", which is where liability exists without intention or negligence. In other words, the defendant need not have intended or known about the circumstance or consequences; but nor does a claimant have to prove that the defendant is at fault.

In the UK, product liability is the most common example where strict liability exists.

Product liability

Under the Consumer Act 1987, strict liability is imposed on manufacturers whose defective products result in injury. The claimant does not have to prove that the manufacturer is to blame for the defect - just that the defect existed.

It does not matter that the defendant did not calculate the product's likelihood of causing damage as they exercised all reasonable care in its manufacture and expected it to be fault free. The manufacturer is still liable for any damage; although they may be able to defend this if they can show the product was not defective when it left the factory.

See also:

Defective Product Injury Compensation Claims

Animal attacks

Under the Animals Act 1971, the owner or keeper of an animal is responsible for the harm that animal causes. This liability applies even if the owner or keeper was not negligent. Strict liability applies where an animal is categorised by law as "dangerous", such as a snake or other exotic pet. Strict liability may also apply if the domesticated animal (e.g. a dog or livestock) was known to behave erratically, or could behave erratically in certain situations.

Vicarious Liability

Vicarious liability is a related concept to strict liability, and refers to a situation where someone is held responsible for the actions or omissions of another person.

As a general rule, employers are held vicariously liable for the liable for the acts and omissions of their employees during the course of their employment.

Even though the employer is morally not to blame for his employee's actions, the claimant can bring a claim against the organisation rather than the individual worker who caused the injury.

The principle of vicarious liability exists because a negligent worker is unlikely to be able to afford to pay compensation, but a company has the means and legal obligation to have liability insurance to cover the cost of any compensation.

Does the claimant have to prove anything at all?

In strict liability cases, the claimant still must provide evidence to demonstrate that the injury was caused by the defendant. This is easier than proving that the defendant caused the injury and the defendant was negligent.

Your solicitor will confirm whether strict liability applies in your case, and will gather evidence to prove the defendant was legally responsible for the harm you suffered.

Get expert advice now

Interested in talking to an injury specialist about your claim?

  • Calls are FREE
  • Confidential consultation
  • No obligation to claim
  • No Win No Fee solicitors

Call 0800 376 1001

or arrange a callback
Chris Salmon, Director

Author:
Chris Salmon, Director