Strict liability and presumptive law differ a great deal. In cases of strict liability, whether a person or company negligently or intentionally caused harm to person or property does not matter; the person or the company is still held liable. In cases of presumption, there is a legal presumption about the situation, but this is generally what is called a rebuttable presumption.
Strict liability is a legal construct designed to protect society from situations in...
Strict liability and presumptive law differ a great deal. In cases of strict liability, whether a person or company negligently or intentionally caused harm to person or property does not matter; the person or the company is still held liable. In cases of presumption, there is a legal presumption about the situation, but this is generally what is called a rebuttable presumption.
Strict liability is a legal construct designed to protect society from situations in which there is such inherent danger that someone must be liable if something goes wrong. The examples of this I learned about in law school included the use of explosives and owning a tiger. No matter how careful people are with these "dangerous instrumentalities," it is easy to see how things could go wrong with them. If we are going to allow people to use explosives and keep wild tigers, we want to be sure that, when things go wrong, someone will have to pay for it. So, even if people handle explosives and tigers properly, if there is harm, these people are liable for it.
On the other hand, a rebuttable presumption simply provides that the court will presume something unless there is evidence to the contrary, a presumption that can be rebutted with evidence. For example, a state might have a statute that provided a rebuttable presumption that minors aged 14-16 are not capable of formulating consent to have sex with an adult. Evidence might be entered to show a 16-year-old female has been emancipated from her parents, is living on her own, attending school, and earning a living. These might very well be factors that show she is perfectly capable of consenting to having sex with someone. Another example is that, in some states, a child born to a married woman is presumed to be the offspring of the people in the marriage. This is not, of course, always true. The law will treat that offspring as though it is, though, unless and until that presumption is rebutted.
There should be no confusion about these terms because they have very different meanings and purposes. Strict liability is meant to protect everyone in society from dangerous activities and objects, while presumptions are a way of making an assumption that can be shown to be false with proper evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment