Talk:Strict liability

Oldest discussion
strict liability you need to know the right understanding of it before you do any thing about law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.94.237 (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Older discussion
This article is terrible, i just got redirected from no-fault liability to this article! They are different!

This article mistates the law.

Strict liability is avilible in some instances for gross negligence (torts), hiring incompetent or uninsured contractors (corperations), contracting for a nuisance/ultahazardous activity (corporations), and via respondeat superior.

The previous text, I belive mistook a different criminal law doctrine for one that is actually applicable in tort and corporations law.

This is the previous text: Strict liability is an attribute of some crimes. Crimes which require no mens rea are considered to be of strict liability. These are offenses in which to do anything wrong is considered blameworthy, regardless of intent. Many traffic offenses are strict liability crimes. Statutory rape is also often considered to be a crime of strict liability.

Reid 05:15, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) Strict liability, simply put, means that there is no mens rea rquired

This section also oversimplifies tort law. There are two catagories for liability - one is for inherently dangerous activities and one is for ultrahazardous activities. Inherently dangerous activities involves a nondelegable duty and ultrahazardous activities involves strict liability. The two concepts are blended into one in this definition.
 * At present, this is at a level of generality so that, albeit simplified, it relates to many different jurisdictions. The moment you introduce distinctions known only to one jurisdiction, it loses it utility to the other jurisdictions. So, if you introduce this U.S. element, we would have to introduce all our very different rules. It is a bit like the nuclear arms race. David91 07:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a new section on what was discussed above - strict liability in criminal law, especially as it applies to traffic and statutory rape offenses. Please let me know on here if I made any mistakes (I'm new!). Thanks in advance : ) --Teh Janitor 08:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Strict liability in contract law
The article gives the impression that strict liability is a concept limited to tort and criminal law. In fact, contract law in many countries, as well as the United Nations Sales Law (CISG) adopts a strict liability standard with certain exceptions. “Contract liability is strict liability.”, to quote the Second Restatements of Contracts.

I believe the article should reflect this. Unfortunately, as I wasn't trained in a strict liability country, I'm not the one to do it, but I do hope that someone more savvy will feel encouraged to do it. Ildottoreverde (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Confusing language removed
I removed the following language:


 * Statutory rape is another example of a strict liability offence. This prevents defendants from raising defences along the line of 'I did not know he/she was underage.' Again, the prosecutor need only prove that the defendant engaged in the sexual activity. The onus rests on the defendant to demonstrate that he genuinely and reasonably believed that the other party was not underage.

Statutory rape in at least some U.S. jurisdictions is not a "strict liability offence." This is unsourced material, so it's a bit difficult to evaluate whether the verbiage is even true anywhere. At any rate, the sentence beginning with the words "The onus rests on the defendant [ . . . ]" is simply incorrect, and directly contradicts the concept of strict liability. Assuming for the sake of argument that statutory rape is a strict liability crime with respect to the element of whether the defendant believed the other party was underage, then there's nothing for the defendant to prove -- the defendant's belief would be irrelevant, as his/her belief would not be a valid defense.

There is another problem with this verbiage. If we take the view that statutory rape is not a strict liability crime, then (at least in the United States) there is no requirement that the defendant "reasonably" believed what he or she believed. If the jury is convinced that the defendant genuinely believed what he or she says he believed, that is a valid defense -- even if that belief is irrational or unreasonable. This is a very important point. For an application of this rule in the context of tax law, for example, see Cheek v. United States. And the burden of proving the defendant's mens rea is on the prosecution, not on the defense.

The vehicle traffic offense example is a much better example of a strict liability offense in the United States. I made some edits to that example as well. Yours, Famspear 20:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Post-script: As to whether any U.S. jurisdictions do in fact treat statutory rape as a strict liability offense with respect to whether the defendant was aware that the other party was under age, I don't know the answer. And I don't know anything about jurisdictions outside the U.S. either. Yours, Famspear 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced speculation removed
I removed the following section
 * It should be noted also that the motivation for this principle is partly financial: most defendants against whom this priciple is brought are large corporations who are in a better position to recoup the loss financially than other parties involved. For instance: if a design flaw is found in a vehicle that causes an accident, the auto manufacturer has more funds available to compensate the victims of the crash than does the driver of the vehicle, despite that s/he may also have been negligent in some way. It is expected that the cost of this responsibility to strict liability is incorporated into the organization's cost of doing business and therefore comes to rest on the entire customer base of that organization instead of just the driver of the car, who may not be able to compensate. Similar to the way insurance works, the principle of strict liability acts to distribute the impact of disastrous occurrences.

Not only is this unsoureced, I is very unlikely to be true. Why are "large corparations" responsible for off-setting the cost of a poor individuals misfortune? This contradicts many countries justification for private proporty. Using this rationale, why aren't "large corparations" required to absorb all monatory damages of anything in which they are at least 1% responsible? This is not like insurance policies, as the current text claims, as these are volentary. One chooses to pay into it. The large corperation does not choose to be a part of it, someone just decided that they had plenty of money so they ought to share it.--Tmchk | Talk 09:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I was looking for an answer to the following strict liability issue: if a firm A makes a product B, which then leaves its premises (suppose it can be proved that other products in the same batch are not defective); subsequently B is damaged; it is then bought by C, who is injured by it; is A still liable? if it cannot be determined where the damage occurred, is anyone liable?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.250.49 (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolute liability should not direct to strict liability
A search for 'absolute liability' gets directed to strict liability it is manifestly erroneous as absolute liability as laid in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) means strict liability without exceptions. Hence there is a need to have a seperate article on absolute liability. LegalEagle (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes
yes, no? ==

I'm having a hard time understanding these two consecutive sentences:
 * Under absolute liability, only an actus reus is required.
 * With strict liability, an actus reus, unintentional or not is all that is required.

Didn't that just say exactly the same thing twice, not making any differentiation between them at all?

Why do I think this article has been edited way too much (often), and too little (well). Shenme (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and made an edit on this point (my first on Wikipedia) because the mistake seemed so glaring. I'm looking for a way to flag the article as in need of the attention of an expert as well. Yndus (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion
I've deleted the sentence: ... "Sometimes a contractor hiring a demolition subcontractor that lacks proper insurance. If the subcontractor makes a mistake, the contractor is strictly liable for any damage that occurs." ... because it's wrong! See Norwich City Council v Harvey. Arrivisto (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Cyclist - Car section
Should the Cyclist - Car section be expanded to include that Denmark, Germany and France also have similar laws:

https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/blog/road-injury/what-drivers-and-cyclists-should-consider/#:~:text=Automatic%20liability%3A%20Drivers%20are%20responsible,responsible%20for%20collisions%20with%20cyclists. 112.213.190.29 (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

No respect for those who contribute!
Question: Before unnecessarily destroying the work of volunteer contributors, shouldn't administrators properly investigate? Only among the incivility of the animal kingdom do those who are stronger destroy randomly/intuitively and without verification. If these are the rights in Wikipedia, I prefer the civilization of the extra-wikipedia world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph77237 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC) (also editing as 95.75.78.144)


 * Any editor can and should remove content that doesn't improve articles, not just administrators. This is not incivility or meant as disrespect; it's an appropriate editorial process that maintains article quality. People do also sometimes remove good content for bad reasons, but that's not what happened in this case; the problems with the added material are described in great detail in the thread below. Sometimes reasons aren't well-communicated in edit summaries, which is why editors are encouraged to discuss disputed changes on talk pages rather than repeatedly undoing each other with terse or hostile edit summaries.
 * It sounds like you're having a rough time getting started on Wikipedia, which I'm sorry about. It can take some time to get accustomed to Wikipedia's style and editing processes, which is different in many ways to technical writing. You seem to have legal expertise and I'm sure are capable of making welcome additions to legal articles. Other editors are here to help you do that, if you can take constructive criticism and work with them in a friendly and cooperative fashion. It helps to focus on content and put our egos aside. -- Beland (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Recent Changes
A lot of changes have been made to the article over the past month. It's great to have editors who are interesting in updating and developing an old, underdeveloped article. With that in mind, please take note that changes should accord with the Manual of Style. Among other issues, some new content is not clear and understandable, the present lead of the article is bloated and difficult to read, the changes introduce formatting errrors and there are citations in a heading, paragraph length has become an issue, and there are overcite issues that make it difficult to read recently added material.

When a lot of changes are made to an article that depart from the style guide, despite the work involved, it sometimes becomes necessary to revert an article to a prior form to bring it back into compliance. It is best that the style guide be followed to avoid that sort of unfortunate possibility. (Notifying recent contributors: ) Arllaw (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Reasons for the changes: if I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia, giving greater prominence to the Anglo-Saxon one in this case, must rearrange all the regulations even if only by indicating them, which entails the indication of at least one source for each nation. Furthermore, at least for the criminal law parts, they were full of serious errors. Personally I spent a lot of time without profit or personal ego: I had read the entry and it was wrong.  As for the language: law is technical, otherwise it would not be necessary to obtain a degree and a qualification. Joseph77237 (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My comment is not about reasons for the changes. I was noting that the article has a lot of issues as a result of the changes. Those issues have reached the point that the article is best fixed by reverting to a version that existed prior to the changes. It is important that changes to articles be compliant with the Manual of Style. Given the amount of work that it would take for other editors to fix the problems, the best way to preserve the changes is to revisit the article and edit the content such that it complies with the Manual of Style. A significant number of lawyers edit Wikipedia, yet edit in compliance with the Manual of Style. Arllaw (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I only corrected the parts of the entry in which I have a degree and qualification: I don't know the other parts (vaccines and non-contractual civil liability) well and I preferred not to change the content: I only indicated the academic sources in the notes, in case someone more expert wants to modify them. Greetings. Joseph77237 (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * All people are welcome to edit as part of this project. Expertise is appreciated. But all editors are expected to edit in accord with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, and even well-intentioned noncompliant edits are subject to possible reversion.
 * The issue of compliance with the style guide, with not rendering an article unintelligible through noncompliant changes, is separate from one of content. If the style issues are corrected such that the article becomes readable, discussion of the content may or may not be necessary. But if the style issues are not resolved, the effort to bring the article into compliance would be such a burden to other editors that reversion remains an appropriate option, and quite probably the best option. At this point, with no indication that the author of the changes will correct the issues created within the article, it is a remedy that I have come to favor. Arllaw (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is objectively illogical to think of judging a technical item without being technically specialized in that subject (R. Alexy, R. Perelman, "Argumentative Logic [...]"), on the basis of the 5 pillars style manual: the 5 pillars lend themselves to misinterpretations:<> (J. Cutter-R. Rorty-U. Eco, "Interpretation and overinterpretation"); the result is to provide a wrong/useless entry to those who consult Wikipedia.    A doctor cannot write an economics article: it is prohibited by law;  as well as being harmful to those who use it: they learn nonsense. Joseph77237 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want to write in jargon and in a format of your own choosing, you may do so on any site that permits dense, unreadable, jargon-laden content. If you want to write for Wikipedia, the content you create must comply with the required elements of the style guide, and are better if they also comply with best practices. It does not matter if you regard that as illogical. Wikipedia runs the site and we thus abide by its rules. Arllaw (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The rules cannot be interpreted by anyone: you must be a law graduate and have a legal qualification to do so; the interpretative criteria (interpretation: literal, teleological, systematic, historical, comparative, logical, etc.[Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Philosophy of Law; Anglo-American Philosophy of Law Joseph77237 (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ...require a title validated by law: only in the jungle does the strongest win (the lion/tiger/et similia); and if the law of the jungle applies in Wikipedia, I am not the strongest, so I resign myself to succumbing.  Greetings. Joseph77237 (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia makes a lot of resources available to new editors, so that they can learn how to edit with a proper encyclopedic tone, format properly, get a solid understanding of the style guide, and the like. You may want to take the time to work through some of those resources, as editing in compliance with the style guide will both improve your contributions and help you avoid frustration. This intro is a good place to start, and this overview links to many other helpful articles. If you choose, you may still bring your edits into compliance. Arllaw (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Intro
Greetings! I see you restored the intro paragraph I deleted with the edit summary "It is "long"(?!), because it explains to the user the difference between strict liability and other forms of objective liability".

A good maximum length for a well-written English paragraph is probably around 5 sentences. This paragraph is 15 sentences, which is too long no matter how well it explains its concepts. If it was well written (sorry to be harsh, but I'll be candid for clarity), I would have simply broken it into shorter paragraphs. Unfortunately it does a poor job communicating these concepts to readers unfamiliar with them. The first sentence has several problems:

"'Strict liability' is roughly identified with 'objective responsibility': the latter actually includes the former, adding vicarious responsibility (liability) and collective responsibility (liability)."


 * Considers the subject as words rather than as the concept itself, violating MOS:LEADSENTENCE
 * Does not bold the subject of the article as required by MOS:BOLDLEAD
 * Does not follow WP:SUMMARYSTYLE; it introduces several concepts which are not explained in the body.
 * Does not define "objective responsibility" or "collective responsibility". Wikipedia does not have articles on these concepts, and it's unclear they are legal terms commonly used to define strict liability.
 * Uses confusing sentence structure with referents "former" and "latter" and uses the confusing construction "responsibility (liability)". Which is meant? Are they the same or different? This is never explained.
 * The relationship "is roughly identified with" is not explained, leaving the reader confused about the relationship between the two purported types of liability.

The paragraph which previously was first does a much better job providing a clear, brief, jargon-free definition:

"In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant."

The second sentence also has major problems: "In fact, in strict liability' the offense is attributed to Tizio without investigating the latter's mens rea."


 * Does not follow the rules of English punctuation, as there is an unbalanced double quotation mark.
 * The phrase "In fact" is redundant or contentless and should not be used. Facts can just be stated; using this phrase makes it sound like the article is attempting to be persuasive.
 * The technical term "mens rea" is used without being explained. This is inappropriate for Wikipedia, which targets a general audience, not a specialist audience. The good version of the intro uses the more accessible term "criminal intent" and links to mens rea for readers interested in more detail on that concept.
 * It's unclear what noun "the latter" is referring to?
 * It's unclear who or what "Tizio" is referring to; this is not even explained later. It's presumably not Tizio, the desk lamp.

This paragraph rambles a lot, uses the passive voice too much, and says weird things about the scientific impossibility of determining intent, punishing everyone in advance for future accidents, and using human beings for the good of society. It contains several instances of what appear to be direct quotes, but they do not have inline citations as required by WP:V. If it had interesting material, I might try to tidy it up, but the gist of the paragraph seems to boil down to what the previous version of the intro and some parts of the body already say in far fewer words.

For these reasons and because two other editors have also objected to this content, I have removed it again. If you think the existing intro needs improvement (something I would agree with), please try to do so in a way that responds to these criticisms rather than just re-adding the text which other editors object to. You might try proposing small additions here so you wouldn't end up wasting a large amount of time going in a direction that might not work out. -- Beland (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Strict criminal liability
I have restored the old version of Strict liability because the new version was very difficult to read, and was not a good summary of Strict liability (criminal), as required by Summary style. I do agree the old version of this section focuses too much on only the US and UK, and that the main article could use expansion to cover more jurisdictions. Unfortunately, the very long list of citations to national laws in the second paragraph of the new version is not very helpful, as it's unclear what point it's trying to make about how strict liability relates to intentional vs. unintentional deaths.

The quality of writing in these two paragraphs is (again, sorry to be harsh) poor. It uses way too much Latin, the grammatical structure is twisty and hard to follow (one sentence has two colons!) and the word choice and tone is weird, as if this text had been transliterated from another language without accounting for typical English flow, or is using an archaic or highly stilted register. It also contains many capitalization errors and presumably non-English constructions like "Section 4°".

If you want to add material to this section, I would actually consider adding it to Strict liability (criminal) first. Though you might try listing some bullet points on the talk page first to get help with putting ideas into readable English prose. The restored version though better is still not an ideal summary of the main article and could use some tweaking, especially if the main article is expanded with better geographic coverage. -- Beland (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * versari in re illicita = Latin formula that dates back to Roman law Avanti Cristo (before Christopher Columbus/Amerigo Vespucci); and is the "Mother" of strict liability, felony murder, preternatural crime etc. Joseph77237 (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hoo justified the changes by indicating academic sources; I certainly don't intend to be a watchdog over the voice: if someone wants to change only for derogatory purposes, go ahead.  Greetings. Joseph77237 (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment. By "Hoo", are you referring to a person named "Hoo" or asking a question misspelling "Who" or making a comment misspelling "You" or something else? Lack of sources is not an objection to keeping this material in the article. I certainly don't mean to be derogatory. If this text was acceptable after only fixing grammar and capitalization and whatnot, I would have simply fixed it. I removed it instead because the ideas it is expressing are either unclear or on the wrong article. -- Beland (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I assume your reference to "versari in re illicita" is in regard to your recent changes to Criminal law, not this article. I'll reply on Talk:Criminal law. -- Beland (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand. Wikipedia is your property.  You could have said it before: I would have saved myself hours of research work. Joseph77237 (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm an editor who tries to follow Wikipedia's editing standards. When somebody edits without knowing or without caring about Wikipedia's standards, they have the opportunity to clean up after themselves.
 * You continue to have the option of cleaning up the article in compliance with Wikipedia's standards. If that's too much work for you, why do you believe that it's appropriate to pass a burden of your creation on to others? Arllaw (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia can be read all over the world: each reader can verify whether you are telling the truth or not. Joseph77237 (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please also review Wikipedia's principles of etiquette, WP:ETIQ. Arllaw (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yours is called "misinterpretation":
 * 1) https://classiccharacterscourse.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/eco-interpretation-and-overinterpretation.pdf
 * 2)https://www.academia.edu/19613640/Emilio_Betti_GENERAL_THEORY_OF_INTERPRETATION
 * Good continuation and goodbye Joseph77237 (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to be misdirecting your ire. I am sorry, however, that you have struggled with editing and encourage you to utilize the many resources that have been directed to your attention, such that things go much more smoothly in the future. Arllaw (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)