Is strict liability fair? Why or why not?

Generally, I believe that strict liability is fair. Strict liability is a legal liability principle for
damages, even though the person who was found to be strictly liable did not act fault fully or
negligently. This theory is generally applicable in three types of situations: animal bites (in some
states), manufacturing defects, and abnormally dangerous activities. The advantage of
consumers is that consumers can sue for any damages caused by the product. Some people
resist the concept because it is unfair for a defendant to be held liable for something unrelated to
their intentions. While liability does not rely on actual negligence or intent to injure, I believe
that someone must be held responsible for the act. For example, if an individual is injured due to
a tiger escape from a zoo, the zoo owner should be held accountable. In tort law (civil), strict
liability damages will typically take the form of monetary compensation. You can collect
different damages if you are injured in a case which falls under strict liability laws
 Current & future medical expenses
 Lost wages
 Property damage and repair costs
 Pain and suffering
 Emotional distress
 Loss of enjoyment
 Loss of consortium (relationship with their spouse)
Also, punitive damages are usually an option in defective product cases. I feel that strict liability
discourages irresponsible conduct and unnecessary damages by requiring prospective defendants
to take appropriate precautions.
We allow strict liability in product liability cases. Do you think this is a good idea? Why or
why not?
I think it is good to allow strict liability in product liability situations since it requires suppliers
of goods to be held liable for their products. Strict product liability laws stipulate that, even
though the defendant takes appropriate measures to avoid this defect, a faulty supplier or
distributor owes compensation to the injured person. In strict product liability cases, it will not
matter whether the defendant was negligent. The plaintiff could still receive financial
compensation for damages, even without proof of the defendant’s fault. Strict product liability
cases have different burdens of proof than standard civil claims. As stated in our textbook, the
defendant has many methods to defend himself; however, courts often take tests (risk/utility &
customer expectations) to find the defendant is not liable even though the product has been faulty
due to the design failure. Thus, if the defendant does not cut corners when checking the
consistency, protection, and efficacy of their device, there should be no cause for concern. This
makes food suppliers responsible for ensuring that their goods are free from defects. If there is a
defect, and it causes injury, they will be held liable.  It does not matter that they made attempts to
prevent a deficiency.  It makes food distributors accountable for ensuring that their products are
free of defects.
Reference:
 Cross, F, and Miller, R. (2017). The Legal Environment of Business.  Cengage Learning.
 How Strict Liability Gives You an Advantage in a Product Defect Lawsuit. (2018, March
23). Drake, Hileman & Davis, PC. https://www.dhdlaw.com/strict-liability-gives-
advantage-product-defect-lawsuit/
 What Is the Difference Between Product Liability and Strict Liability? (n.d.). Fischer
Redavid PLLC. Retrieved October 12, 2020, from
https://www.frtriallawyers.com/product-liability-vs-strict-liability/