Wed Jun 15, 3: In the arena of life!
Regulatory bodies tend to favour the approach of declaring offences to be strict or absolute liability, because it makes it easier to prosecute people: Jurists consider such a mechanism to be a blunt instrument, and recommend its use only in limited circumstances: Absolute liability is used for certain regulatory offences in which it is necessary for individuals engaged in potentially hazardous or harmful activity to exercise extreme, and not merely reasonable, care.
Such offences as exceeding 60 kilometres per hour in a 60 kilometre zone, causing pollution to waters, selling alcohol to underage persons, refusing or failing to submit to breath testing and publishing a name in breach of a suppression order.
In these cases, the courts accepted that the benefits to the community overrode any potential negative impact on the accused person. City of Sault Ste-Mariethe Supreme Court of Canada defined an absolute liability offence as an offence "where it is not open to the accused to exculpate himself by showing that he was free of fault.
Generally, criminal offences are presumed to be mens rea offences, and regulatory offences are presumed to be strict liability offences.
Therefore, most offences are not absolute liability offences, and usually will require an explicit statement in the statute. The overall regulatory pattern; The subject matter of the legislation; The importance of the penalty; and The precision of the language used in the statute.
This liability standard has been laid down by the Indian Supreme Court in M.Strict Liability. Strict liability torts, which do not require a finding of intent or negligence, are primarily confined to ultrahazardous activities and product liability cases.
An activity is ultrahazardous if it is so inherently dangerous that even the highest degree of care will not eliminate the risk of harm. the policy arguments in a negligence case do not carry over to a strict product liability case, and PRODUCT LIABILITY FINAL Sample Answer (12/2/88) Page 2 .
Many academic papers differentiate strict and absolute liability by the availability of the defence of honest but mistaken belief, which is a common law defence. Where it is available the liability is strict, where it is not available the liability is absolute. Criminal Law Bar Essay Checklist Outline Law Outlines > California Bar Bundle Outlines This is an extract of our Criminal Law Bar Essay Checklist document, which we sell as part of our California Bar Bundle Outlines collection written by the top tier of Thomas Jefferson School Of Law students.
Laws determining liability for a dog bite vary from state to state, but there are essentially two basic kinds of laws: liability when the dog owner knew or should have known the dog might bite someone, and liability regardless of what the owner knew or should have known.
This article discusses the difference between these two legal concepts in. Strict liability, also referred to as “absolute liability,” applies to such issues as injuries or other damages caused by a defective product, damages caused by animals, and engaging in certain hazardous activities.
An individual or entity may be held strictly liable in both civil and criminal actions.