Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The concept of strict liability is also found in criminal law. Strict liability often applies to vehicular traffic offenses: in a speeding case, for example, whether the defendant knew that the posted speed limit was being exceeded is irrelevant; the prosecutor need only prove that the defendant was driving the vehicle in excess of the posted ...
In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea (Law Latin for "guilty mind") does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus ("guilty act") although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offense (Preterintentionally [1] [2] /ultraintentional [3] /versari in re illicita).
Rex v. Prince, L.R. 2 C.C.R. 154 (1875), was an English case that held the mens rea necessary for criminal liability should be required for the elements central to the wrongfulness of the act, and that strict liability should apply to the other elements of the statute, such as the believed age of an abductee being irrelevant.
Although federal courts often hear tort cases arising out of common law or state statutes, there are relatively few tort claims that arise exclusively as a result of federal law. The most common federal tort claim is the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 remedy for violation of one's civil rights under color of federal or state law, which can be used to sue ...
Criminal Law Directions. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press. 2016. Chapter 15.5.3. Pages 426 and 427. Blackstone's Criminal Practice 2012. Pages 82, 99, 103 and 107. R S Clark, "The Defence of Impossibility and Offences of Strict Liability" (1968 to 1969) 11 Criminal Law Quarterly 154
Posner explains the relationship between negligence and strict liability as follows: The baseline common law regime of tort liability is negligence. When it is a workable regime, because the hazards of an activity can be avoided by being careful (which is to say, nonnegligent), there is no need to switch to strict liability. Sometimes, however ...
The volumes covering torts are part of the second Restatements of the Law series. It includes four volumes, with the first two published in 1965, the third in 1977 and the last in 1979. Section 402A of this Restatement, discussing strict liability for defective products, is by far the most widely cited section of any Restatement. [2]
The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, [2] i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". [3] [4] As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law. [5] [6] Exceptions are known as strict liability crimes.