Strict liability and negligence Essay

Negligence is a crucial element to determine the strict liability of a accused. Negligence is considered the most ancient theory of product liability as well as the stringent liability.

Generally speaking it is for the individual to prove that the defendant was negligent. The initial burden of making out at least prima facie case of negligence because against the accused lies seriously on the individual, but when this onus is released, it will be to get the accused to provide evidence that the episode was the consequence of inevitable incident or contributory negligence for the plaintiff. (Jones, 2007)(25) There are some factors should be demonstrated by the individual in order to make claim against the defendants under the guideline of stringent liability. 24. ibid a few 25.

Roberts, A. Micheal (2007), A text publication on Atteinte, Ch. two, 9th ed., publ. by simply Oxford University Press Rigid Liability 14 Duty of care: The plaintiff need to prove that an obligation of attention was payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. Mere negligence on the part of defendant doesn’t entitle the individual to prosecute him. He has to set up that the defendant owed to him a specific legal work to take care of which will he has turned a break.

In this interconnection, in famous case of Donogue Compared to Stevenson it was held a manufacturer from the products which he sells in such a kind as to present that he intends them to reach the greatest consumer in the form by which they remaining him with no reasonable possibility of intermediate assessment and with the relief of knowing that the a shortage of reasonable care in the planning of putting up of the products will result in a personal injury to consumer’s life or property, owes a duty to the consumer to consider that sensible care. (26) Breach of duty: Infringement of work means no observance of due care which is required in a particular situation. Yet here the defendant acted like a affordable prudent man there is no neglect.

In Blyth Vs Luton waterworks Co(27). it was clearly explained that negligence is the omission to accomplish something which a fair man, well guided upon individuals considerations which usually ordinarily control the execute of human affairs, might do or doing a thing that a wise and affordable man will not do. ) Proximate trigger: The individual should prove that the infringement of duty proximately triggered the plaintiff’s injuries. Finally there should be legitimate and satisfactory injury occurred to the plaintiff due to the faulty /dangerous item. 26. ibid 6 28. Blyth As opposed to Birmingham waterworks Co (1856) 11Ex. 281 Strict Liability15 The manufacturers will have the duty to exercise sensible care that manufactures the products.

Poor assembling the products, difference used of element parts as well as design requirements, failure to inspect the done products, aspect parts and failure in correction in any defective products are some illustrations to lead the plaintiff to claim under the regulation of stringent liability. ( Faegre & Benson, 2003) (28) In R Vs Lemon (29)the publisher of any gay media were charged with blasphemous libel against Christ by using a poem which has been considered as a great slur to Christianity. The court kept that it is the pure case of blaspheme as they got intention to create so they may be responsible for their act. Moreover in Alpha cell Versus Woodward, (30) the company was accused of causing infected water to enter river by using equipment to avoid any flood in to the riv.

But because of the collapse in the machine, the polluted things leaked out to the water. There was clearly no evidence that the accused is negligent but the court docket held that the defendant experienced caused the pollution in the water and so they held accountable.