Strict Liability

Strict liability is a standard for liability which may
exist either in criminal or civil context.
In tort law strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault.
It is the concept that in certain situations a defendant is liable for claimant’s damages without any requirement that the claimant prove that the defendant was negligent. All the claimant need do, is to prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible. The law imputes strict liability on situations it considers dangerous. It discourages  reckless behaviour and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. A good example of strict liability is a construction company awarded a bridge to contract, but went further to subcontract the job to another contractor who as a result of his mistake, the bridge collapsed. The original contractor is strictly liable for the damages.
In strict liability situation, although the claimant does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defence of absence of fault, especially in cases of product liability, where the defence may argue that the defect was the result of the claimant’s actions and not of the product. Under English law, in cases where tortuous liability is strict, the defendant will often be liable only for the reasonably foreseeable consequences  of his act or omission.
A form of strict liability has been supported in law in the Netherlands for bicycle-motor vehicle accidents. In a collision between a car and a cyclist in the Netherland, the driver is deemed to be liable to pay damages. The damages must be paid in full, as long as the collision was unintentional.
In Criminal law, strict liability often applies to vehicular traffic offences. In a speeding case for example, whether the defendant knows that the posted speed limit was being exceeded is irrelevant. The prosecutor would need to prove only that the defendant was operating the vehicle in excess of the speed limit.
Strict liability can be determined by looking at the intent of the legislature. If the legislature seems to have purposefully left out a mental state element (Mens Rea) because they felt mental state need not be proven, it is treated as a strict liability. However when a statute is silent as to the mental state (Mens rea)and it is not clear that the legislature purposely left it out, the ordinary presumption is that a mental state is required for criminal liability. When no Mens rea is specified, the default Mens rea requirement is recklessness, which is defined as “when a person consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk with respect to a material element”. Strict liability laws can also prevent defendants from raising diminished mental capacity defenses, since intent does not need to be proven.
The imposition of strict liability may operate unfairly to individual cases. For example in Pharmacentical Society of Great Britain V. Storkwain (1986) v All ER 635, a pharmacist supplied drug to a patient who forged doctors’ prescription, was convicted even though the House of Lords accepted that the pharmacist was blameless. The justification is that the misuse of drug is a grave social evil and the pharmacist ought to verify prescription before supplying drugs. Where liability is imputed or attributed to another, the effect of that imputation may be strict liability albeit that, in some cases, the accused will have a mens rea imputed and so, in theory, will be as culpable as the actual wrongdoer.

Nkechi Bright Ewere