Defense to strict liability: Which is a recognized defense?

Defense to strict liability: Which is a recognized defense?

• A. Comparative/contributory negligence
• B. Assumption of risk
• C. Product was misused
• D. No defense available

Answer: (A)

The key concept is that even though a defendant can be strictly liable for a defective product, the plaintiff’s own fault can cut into or bar recovery. Comparative or contributory negligence is treated as a valid defense to strict liability because it assigns fault to the plaintiff as well as the manufacturer, so damages can be reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s degree of fault (or even barred if their fault is complete under contributory-negligence regimes). This is why comparative/contributory negligence is the best answer: it directly affects the amount recovered in a strict-liability case by accounting for the plaintiff’s own actions. Other factors like product misuse or assumption of risk can sometimes shield a defendant in particular circumstances, but they aren’t as universally recognized as a stand-alone defense to the strict-liability framework in the same way that fault-based reduction is. And saying no defense is available ignores the well-established ability to reduce liability when the plaintiff bears fault.

The key concept is that even though a defendant can be strictly liable for a defective product, the plaintiff’s own fault can cut into or bar recovery. Comparative or contributory negligence is treated as a valid defense to strict liability because it assigns fault to the plaintiff as well as the manufacturer, so damages can be reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s degree of fault (or even barred if their fault is complete under contributory-negligence regimes).

This is why comparative/contributory negligence is the best answer: it directly affects the amount recovered in a strict-liability case by accounting for the plaintiff’s own actions. Other factors like product misuse or assumption of risk can sometimes shield a defendant in particular circumstances, but they aren’t as universally recognized as a stand-alone defense to the strict-liability framework in the same way that fault-based reduction is. And saying no defense is available ignores the well-established ability to reduce liability when the plaintiff bears fault.