What is the difference between negligence and strict liability in product liability law?

Negligence and strict liability are two different theories of fault in product liability law. Negligence is the traditional theory that holds a person or company responsible for any injuries they cause due to carelessness or inattention. To prove negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant breached a duty of care, that the breach caused injuries, and that the injuries caused damages. Strict liability, on the other hand, does not require the plaintiff to show that the defendant was at fault or acted negligently. This theory is based on the idea that manufacturers should be held responsible for any injuries caused by their products regardless of fault. This applies even if all reasonable precautions were taken in the design and manufacture of the product. In Florida, strict liability applies only to cases in which a product is considered “unreasonably dangerous.” The primary distinction between negligence and strict liability is the level of proof required to prove liability. Negligence requires proof of a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and damages caused by the breach. Strict liability, on the other hand, does not require proof of fault or negligence—only that the product was unreasonably dangerous.

Related FAQs

Is a manufacturer liable for products they did not manufacture but only sold?
What is the legal definition of a defective product?
How does a company determine if a product design is safe?
What is the “state of the art” defense?
How does the law distinguish between a product’s design and its warnings?
What types of proof are required to establish a product liability claim?
Are there any criminal penalties associated with product liability law?
How is the price of a defective product determined?
Are products with “open and obvious” defects liable?
What is “strict liability”?

What is the difference between negligence and strict liability in product liability law?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts