Talk:Strict liability

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

message: 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)
thread_title: Strict liability in contract law

message: 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)
thread_title: Confusing language removed

message: 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)
thread_title: Unsourced speculation removed

message: 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)
thread_title:  Absolute liability should not direct to strict liability 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Yes == yes, no? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cyclist - Car section