Let’s expand ‘strict liability’

Gary Jacobsen
Published: April 22, 2008

There is a legal concept known as “strict liability,” sometimes also referred to as “absolute liability.” It means, in essence, that a person or a company can be held liable for damages to others even though the person was not negligent and did not commit an overt act of any kind to cause the harm.

Some examples are in order. Consider the liability of the owner of a tiger rehabilitation center. No matter how strong the cages are, if an animal escapes and causes damage and injury, the owner is held liable. Another example is a contractor hiring a demolition subcontractor who lacks proper insurance. If the subcontractor makes a mistake, the contractor is strictly liable for any damage that occurs.
Finally, if a Pit Bull dog mauls another animal or a person, the owner will be held strictly liable for medical bills plus the victim’s pain and suffering. This is true even though the animal had a reputation for gentleness and even though the owner tried to restrain it with a leash.

The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous. It discourages reckless behavior and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. It also has the effect of simplifying litigation and allowing the victim to become whole more quickly.

I think the legal concept of strict liability should be expanded in two significant areas: bank operations and gun ownership. Here’s why:

Banks are virtually inviting robbers by not putting tellers behind protective glass. As a result, gun-wielding thugs enter banks with impunity and demand cash. In the process, innocent bank customers are placed at risk. If a customer is injured or killed, the bank usually shrugs it off by saying the thug did the shooting, not a bank employee. The bank then contacts its insurance company, the local police and the FBI and demands to be made whole, either with or without the capture of the robbers. The circumstances fit the definition of “inherently dangerous” —running a bank operation without taking all possible precautions to protect employees and customers.

Another situation that requires strict liability is gun ownership. Persons who own firearms are notorious for leaving them about the house, presumably because they want the weapons readily available in case their home is invaded by thugs (about as common as lightning striking the house). But by refusing to keep guns in locked cabinets, or at a minimum by not installing trigger locks on them, the weapons are easily lifted by teenagers who want to impress friends or, worse, to open fire on classmates at school.

Thus, the gun owner has created an inherently dangerous situation. He should be held strictly liable for all damage caused by the firearm even though it was another person who did the actual shooting.
The fact that a teenage shooter took the weapon without permission from his dad’s bed stand is no defense. Dad is liable as surely as is the well-meaning person who tried to rehabilitate tigers and one escaped.

Will either of my suggestions be taken seriously by lawyers or judges? Not anytime soon, I’m afraid. Banks will claim they don’t want to look like fortresses by putting tellers behind bulletproof glass. Gun owners will scream “Second Amendment rights” if any court tries to hold them liable for damage caused by carelessly stored firearms. Nothing will change. The rest of us will remain at risk.

Gary Jacobsen lives in Woodbridge.