To sue for strict liability, privity is not required.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The statement under consideration is: 'To sue for strict liability, privity is not required.'

Option 1 (True): In many areas of tort law, strict (or absolute) liability for products and certain hazardous activities allows a plaintiff to recover without proving privity of contract. The core idea is that the seller or manufacturer is liable to any user or consumer who is injured by a defective product, regardless of whether the plaintiff had a direct contractual relationship with the defendant. This shift away from privity aims to place the risk-bearing costs on the party most capable of ensuring safety and bearing the blame for dangerous conditions. However, some jurisdictions or specific contexts may still be nuanced, so the precise rule can vary depending on the governing law.

Option 2 (False): If privity were required for strict liability claims, many plaintiffs who were injured by defective products or dangerous activities—and who did not buy the product from the defendant—could not recover. This would mirror older contract-style requirements and would undermine the protective purposes of strict liability in tort. In some contexts, privity exceptions exist for contract-based claims, but those are distinct from strict liability in tort and would not align with the general principle that liability should not depend on direct contractual linkage.

In summary, the commonly taught principle is that strict liability claims do not require privity, making the statement largely accurate in typical jurisdictions and scenarios. Nevertheless, always consider the specific jurisdictional rules, since exceptions or nuances can appear in different legal systems.

To sue for strict liability, privity is not required.

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

Under what legal doctrine does a firm bear legal responsibility for injuries caused by something it made or sold, whether or not it was negligent?

An example of an ultra-hazardous activity is the manufacturing of dynamite.

A rule of strict liability leads to...

In a strict liability case, if it can be proved that a business was as careful as possible about its product or service, it is not held liable for the harm that results from its use.

Consolidated Trucking Company transports radioactive materials. Darla suffers from cancer. To succeed in a strict liability action against Consolidated, Darla must show that her injury was caused by

Strict liability in tort requires proof that the defendant’s conduct was intentional.

Strict liability may hold manufacturers responsible for their products even if they acted with due diligence and reasonable care.

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler