Timeline for What is strict liability (US)?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 30, 2019 at 23:07 | comment | added | David Siegel | @Putvi I have lived in MD, NY, NJ, MI. I have read legal cases from all over the uS, and from some other countries. In all of these the word negligence is used often in tort cases., and it is used as I have been using it in this answer, to mean some degree of avoidable fault, some carelessness or failure to do thye correct thing. That is how the site you linked to uses it. No source you have cited or I have seen calls engaging in a highly dangerous activity like blasting "Negligence" when all plausible precautions ahvbe been taken, but strict liability still applies. | |
| Mar 30, 2019 at 22:07 | comment | added | Putvi | @DavidSiegel, I don't know where you are from, but in Illinois the word negligence is used often in tort cases. I can't like you to the cases unless you have access to the legal databases, but read this law.cornell.edu/wex/comparative_negligence | |
| Mar 29, 2019 at 22:41 | comment | added | David Siegel | I am looking exactly at how courts and legislatures have it. None of them have used the term "Negligence" to mean "inherently dangerous", nor to mean "anything that causes liability". They use it to mean "failing in care", "omitting reasonable precaution" or "not doing what should be done". Strict liability is exactly that set of cases where damages may be imposed even if the defendant did NOT fail in care, i.e was not negligent. They are opposites, as the final cite just added to my answer says. Can you present any source that defines or uses "negligence" as you are doing? I see none | |
| Mar 29, 2019 at 22:22 | comment | added | Putvi | Again, that's just reading things and not looking at how courts and legislatures have used things. "The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability#cite_note-Cantu-3 | |
| Mar 29, 2019 at 22:22 | comment | added | David Siegel | Cambridge English Dictionary: "the fact of not giving enough care or attention to someone or something". In short, your usage does not seem to agree with any of several dictionary defs. i carefully selected only general dictionaries, not specifically legal ones. | |
| Mar 29, 2019 at 22:19 | comment | added | David Siegel | merriam-webster: "failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances"; Business dictionary: "Negligence usually includes doing something that an ordinary, reasonable, and prudent person would not do, or not doing something such a person would do"; Dictionary.com: " the failure to exercise that degree of care that, in the circumstances, the law requires for the protection of other persons..."; Britannica: "the failure to meet a standard of behaviour established to protect society against unreasonable risk. " ... | |
| Mar 29, 2019 at 21:59 | comment | added | Putvi | @DavidSiegel yes that is what I mean and where the idea of strict liability comes from. | |
| Mar 29, 2019 at 21:28 | comment | added | David Siegel | Are you saying that any use of explosives constitutes negligence, even if all normal and reasonable precautions are taken, and independent experts do not recommend any additional precautions? If that is what you mean, I think you are stretching "negligence" well beyond any ordinary meaning. If that is not what you mean, then please clarify, because it seem to me that is what you imply. | |
| Mar 29, 2019 at 21:23 | comment | added | Putvi | Negligence has a legal connotation to it, but that doesn't mean it has to be interpreted as such, as it also has a plain English meaning. Its not only a legal term. In the blasting cases for example, one can reasonably assume explosives may injure someone or destroy something. Therefore you could be negligent in protecting those things as used in the English definition of the word, even if you aren't applying a legal principle like the MPC classifcation. | |
| Mar 29, 2019 at 21:19 | comment | added | David Siegel | "negligence" is a legal term of art, and is used as such on this site. And what sort of "negligence" are you suggesting is present in, for example, the blasting cases? | |
| Mar 29, 2019 at 21:15 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Mar 30, 2019 at 18:54 | |||||
| Mar 29, 2019 at 21:13 | comment | added | Putvi | It depends on how you use the word negligence though. As I said, in terms of the MPC classification, you are right about negligence, but in terms of the word negligence being used just as an explanation online, no. | |
| Mar 29, 2019 at 21:09 | comment | added | David Siegel | This is a comment on another answer, not an answer itself, and should be made as a comment. As the the substance, I never said, nor intended to imply, that there is no possible defense in a strict liability case. I said only that lack of intent and failure to prove negligence are not defenses. I also said that the class of cases where the concept applies is narrow. But it is not empty, as @Putvi stated in comments on the linked question. The Foster case said that SL is " held to establish liability, irrespective of negligence" | |
| Mar 29, 2019 at 20:56 | history | answered | Putvi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |