What is the difference between a negligence and a strict liability claim in a construction accident case?

In a construction accident case, the difference between a negligence and a strict liability claim is significant. Negligence is when an individual fails to act with a reasonable standard of care, causing injury to another person. Strict liability, on the other hand, does not require proof of negligence. Instead, the plaintiff must prove a specific legal duty was breached, likely due to the reckless or dangerous nature of the defendant’s action, leading to injury. Under California law, a plaintiff in a construction accident case can sue an individual or entity for negligence if they can demonstrate that they failed to exercise a reasonable degree of care. To do so, it is important to show that the person or party allegedly responsible for the accident should have been aware that the conditions were dangerous and had the obligation to act to prevent harm but failed to do so. In a negligence lawsuit, typically the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct bore some responsibility for causing the injury. In a strict liability claim, on the other hand, the plaintiff need not prove negligence on the part of the defendant. Strict liability can be asserted when the defendant is in possession of a product or device that is inherently dangerous, meaning it was likely to cause harm no matter how carefully the defendant used it. Generally, the plaintiff must prove that the hazardous product came from the defendant, that the defendant was in possession of the product during the accident, and that the product caused the plaintiff’s injury. In California, negligence and strict liability claims are both available to plaintiffs in construction accident cases. Depending on the situation, individuals may opt to pursue either a negligence claim or a strict liability claim.

What is the difference between a negligence and a strict liability claim in a construction accident case?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts