What is the difference between strict liability and tortuous liability? 20 Answers as of February 21, 2012

Can you please tell me the difference between strict liability and tortuous liability?

Ask a Local Attorney. 100% Anonymous. Free Answers.

Free Case Evaluation by a Local Lawyer: Click here
LT Pepper Law
LT Pepper Law | Luke T. Pepper
Strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault. The plaintiff must show that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible. Generally someone who is injured must show negligence.
Answer Applies to: Pennsylvania
Replied: 5/27/2011
Howard W. Collins, Attorney at Law
Howard W. Collins, Attorney at Law | Howard W. Collins
The best way to answer that is an airplane analogy. If a plane crash occurs, you know it is not the fault of the passenger, so the fault is strict liability with the airline or plane manufacturer. A car collision is a good illustration of allocated fault. Say two cars approach an intersection and the car to the right has the right of way, but is exceeding the speed limit. The car to the left enters the intersection as does the car to the right. Both sides will say it was the fault of the other. Fault could be allocated between the two parties by the jury.
Answer Applies to: Oregon
Replied: 5/16/2011
Richard E. Lewis, P.S.
Richard E. Lewis, P.S. | Richard Eugene Lewis
Negligence and Strict liability both will arise from a tort, in most cases. Strict Liability does not require proof of negligence. Still, you must prove that the injury arises out of the source that has strict liability. Normally, you are required to prove negligence to recover for a tort.
Answer Applies to: Washington
Replied: 5/13/2011
Allegretti & Associates
Allegretti & Associates | James L. Allegretti
Strict liability means that your own negligence is not an issue. A tort is a wrong. all wrongs do not have a remedy.
Answer Applies to: Illinois
Replied: 5/13/2011
Michael Anthony Wing, P.C.
Michael Anthony Wing, P.C. | Michael Anthony Wing
They are both civil liability. Strict liability is associated with unreasonably dangerous activities, like blasting. Tortuous liability requires proof of the tort claim, like negligence, fraud or assault. All of them require proof of damages, proximately resulting from the acts alleged. Stay well.
Answer Applies to: Alabama
Replied: 5/13/2011
    Patrick M Lamar Attorney
    Patrick M Lamar Attorney | Patrick M Lamar
    There is nothing called tortuous liability. It is tort liability. This means liability with some level of fault, either negligence or wantonness. Strict liability means that if you do a certain act and someone is injured you are liable, period. This includes very few actions like blasting.
    Answer Applies to: Alabama
    Replied: 5/13/2011
    Paul Whitfield and Associates P.A.
    Paul Whitfield and Associates P.A. | Paul L. Whitfield
    Strict liability refers to a product that is inherently dangerous and likely to cause injury. There is no term "tortuous" liability. A tort is a civil wrong for which you can make a claim. Liability attaches when there is a lack of due care or a lack of reasonable care (basically means the same thing).
    Answer Applies to: North Carolina
    Replied: 5/13/2011
    Law Office of Sam Levine, LLC
    Law Office of Sam Levine, LLC | Sam L. Levine
    I can articulate the legal difference between the two, but can you provide a little more background before I do so?
    Answer Applies to: Georgia
    Replied: 5/13/2011
    Tenge Law Firm, LLC
    Tenge Law Firm, LLC | J. Todd Tenge
    Strict liability is a type of tortuous liability. Specifically, it is one of the many claims which fall under "torts" - or as you phrased it, "tortuous liability". You may be thinking of negligence versus strict liability. Negligence is almost always governed by the "reasonableness standard". Whereas "strict liability" usually means some sort of statute or regulation (i.e. Law) imposes liability on the actor strictly (i.e. no matter what).
    Answer Applies to: Colorado
    Replied: 5/12/2011
    David F. Stoddard
    David F. Stoddard | David F. Stoddard
    Good Question. Strict liability is a type of tortuous liability, much like speeding is a type of traffic offense. Most civil cases are either contract cases or tort cases. There are others, such as cases arising from property law, corporate law, estate law, etc. Tort cases include negligence cases, intentional torts such as assault and battery, slander, invasion of privacy, etc. The most common tort case is a negligence case. Auto accident cases are the most common of these, but "slip and fall" and malpractice cases are also included. There are some torts that involve strict liability, that is, the plaintiff does not have to prove negligence or an intentional infliction of injury, to prevail. One example is when a person, or company, is engaged in an inherently dangerous activity that causes injury. For example, if someone is dynamiting rocks near a city to clear room for a highway, and someone in the city is injured, there might be strict liability even if there was no negligence.

    In SC there is a type of strict liability for dog bites. There used to be a "two bite rule", meaning an owner had to be on notice that a dog is vicious and prone to bite to be liable. Being on notice and still allowing the dog around people is negligent. Years ago, the court adopted a new rule that an owner is strictly liable for a dog bite. There may be some exceptions, such as where you have the dog penned up and someone goes into the pen. Products liability is one of the more common strict liability cases. If a manufacturer distributes a product that is unreasonably dangerous, the manufacturer is liable for any damages cause by the product even if there was no negligence in the manufacture of the product. A product can be unreasonably dangerous because of a manufacturing defect (ie a flaw that does not conform to the way the product is designed, such as tire with a weak spot), or because of an unsafe design. An example might be a crib that allows a baby to get its head through the slats and strangle itself. Even if the manufacturer followed all existing standards and all due care in designing the crib, if the court found the crib to be unreasonably dangerous, the manufacturer would be liable.

    This may be a Bad example because the manufacturer would probably have been negligent in designing such a product. In fact, in most products cases, the plaintiff usually alleges both negligence and strict liability based on an unreasonably dangerous product. Whether a product is unreasonably dangerous is a question of fact for the jury to decide (or for the judge in a bench trial. Bench trials are rare because defendants almost always request jury trials. This is because juries overwhelmingly favor defendants in personal injury cases, contrary to popular myth). The issue of whether a product is unreasonably dangerous is based on a number of factors, including, what was the "state of the art" in the design of this product at the time of manufacture, the cost of a safer alternate design, Whether a safer design would reduce the functionality of the product, and so on.
    Answer Applies to: South Carolina
    Replied: 5/12/2011
    Cody and Gonillo, LLP
    Cody and Gonillo, LLP | Christine Gonilla
    There is no defense if strict liability is proven (although the amount of damages can be disputed).
    Answer Applies to: Connecticut
    Replied: 5/12/2011
    Klisz Law Office, PLLC
    Klisz Law Office, PLLC | Timothy J. Klisz
    Tortuous liability does not exist in the law. Tort liability is based on negligence. Strict liability is rare, based on statute.
    Answer Applies to: Michigan
    Replied: 5/12/2011
    Ackley Law Group, PLLC
    Ackley Law Group, PLLC | Andrew N. Ackley
    Strict liability refers to limited situations where, when an injury occurs, the person/company responsible for causing the injury is automatically liable, without the plaintiff having to prove negligence. Examples include manufacturing defects, abnormally dangerous activities, and hazardous animals (if you have a pet lion in your back yard). I think by tortious liability you mean liability based on negligence. This applies to the vast majority of cases. Someone is negligent when he/she fails to do what was reasonable under the circumstances, or fails to do what reason says to do. What is "reasonable" is sometimes defined in part by state laws (driving while on the phone, for example), but is often times a jury determination based on the facts of the case.
    Answer Applies to: Washington
    Replied: 5/12/2011
    Law Offices of Timothy G. Kearney, LLC
    Law Offices of Timothy G. Kearney, LLC | Timothy G. Kearney
    There are certain activities that carry the burden of strict liability - For example working with dynamite and things go wrong.
    Answer Applies to: Connecticut
    Replied: 5/12/2011
    Law Offices of Joseph I. Lipsky, P.A.
    Law Offices of Joseph I. Lipsky, P.A. | Joseph Lipsky
    Assuming you are discussing strict liability and negligence, the difference is essentially having to prove, through facts based upon common or statutory law, that someone was negligent, to wit: did something they should not have; versus, only having to prove that something took place, which would hold someone strictly liable.
    Answer Applies to: Florida
    Replied: 5/12/2011
    David Hoines Law
    David Hoines Law | David Hoines
    Strict liability generally involves a product or drug that causes harm to someone. Tortuous liability general involves someone being hurt on account of negligence of another.
    Answer Applies to: Florida
    Replied: 5/12/2011
    Ewusiak & Roberts, P.A.
    Ewusiak & Roberts, P.A. | Christopher J. Roberts
    "Strict liability" generally refers to a legal doctrine wherein fault is not necessary to impose liability. One example is the sale of a defective product. Many states impose "strict liability" against product manufacturers for selling defective products that cause injury. If a product is defective and causes foreseeable injury (and is not misused by the consumer), the manufacturer can be deemed liable for the resulting damages even without a showing by the victim that the manufacturer knew or should have known of the defect. The philosophy behind this doctrine is that product manufacturers are better situated than consumers to absorb the cost of damages resulting from defects in their products. A claim sounding in negligence requires proof that the defendant knew or should have known of a danger, but unreasonably exposed another to risk despite that actual or constructive knowledge, causing foreseeable damages. A short-hand expression is that the law imposes the duty that we all act reasonably. If one behaves unreasonably and causes foreseeable injury or damage, he or she may be liable in negligence. Tort law actually encompasses both strict liability (no fault) concepts and negligence. Both are considered torts. One tort requires unreasonable conduct (negligence), the other does not (strict liability). I hope this helps answer your question.
    Answer Applies to: Florida
    Replied: 2/21/2012
Click to View More Answers:
12 3 Free Legal QuestionsConnect with a local attorney