Strict liability was first applied in the United States to the keeping of dangerous animals such as lions, tigers, elephants and wolves. Owners of those animals who injure another are strictly liable.

Another group of cases of strict liability hold people accountable for any damages connected with abnormally dangerous activities, such as blasting at a construction site, even when they were not at fault.

Activities are considered to be abnormally dangerous if they can potentially cause serious harm to persons or property, if reasonable care cannot completely prevent that risk, and if the activities are not commonly performed in the area.2 These activities will almost inevitably lead to injuries, even when they are conducted with the greatest care and prudence. Social policy dictates that people who carry out dangerous activities must be prepared to compensate anyone who suffers from these activities.

Recently a great deal of attention has been given to cases involving products liability. When applied to these cases, the doctrine of strict liability holds one liable for injuries caused by a defective, unreasonably dangerous product that he has placed on the market. A number of states have passed products liability legislation. Many statutes alter to some extent the doctrine of strict liability when it is applied to manufacturers and limit its application in the case of retailers and wholesalers.

Since the doctrine of strict liability is not based on fault, the defense of contributory negligence is not usually available to a defendant sued on.this theory. But, if a person knowingly places himself in a place of danger or engages in a dangerous activity, then a defendant may use the fact that the plaintiff has assumed the risk of injury as a defense. Of course the plaintiff who sues on the theory of strict liability must show that the activity subject to the doctrine has a causal relationship to his injury.

Business needs fostered the tort reform movement in the 1970s. By that time the amount of business insurance premiums had escalated dramatically. In addition, some businesses found it difficult to obtain insurance coverage anywhere. And the main reason for this crisis was identified as the dramatic increase in both the number of lawsuits (mostly for tort claims) and in the size of the judgments collected.5 To address this problem, business groups began to advocate the concept of "tort reform".

While state tort reform statutes vary widely, a common theme in all of them is an attempt to limit the amount and type of monetary damages a successful plaintiff can recover in automobile accident cases. Some states have adopted a system of no fault, under which the injured party collects from his own insurance company, and payments are made regardless of fault.

A relevant question today is whether tort law based on fault should be abandoned in favor of a social system of insurance to compensate the injured in accidents, without regard to fault.

Answer the following questions:
1. For what reasons was the theory of strict liability developed?
2. Compare and contrast the tort of negligence with the tort of strict liability.
3. What are the basic elements of the tort of strict liability?
4. What are the defenses for the tort of strict liability?
5. What are the weaknesses of the strict liability theory of recovery?
6. Why there has been a tort reform recently?
7. Explain the main reforms in the tort system.
8. What alternatives to our traditional tort system can you suggest?
9. Do you think compensation through insurance is a good substitute tort? Give your reasons.
10. Do you think the tort law based on fault should be abandoned? Why?