Strict vs. Absolute liability -- please help!!

[moros]

Hi all,

I've got H&S law exams coming up and I'm finding so many contradictory examples of what the difference is between strict and absolute liabilities. Could someone please put me out of my misery and try to explain in simple terms the difference?

Many Thanks,

Paul.

[Alexis]

Hi there moros and Welcome to the site.

I am not much help I am afraid, but I know others who will come in with help for you.

Enjoy the site.

[Gladiator]

Moros

I've got to be honest with you and say that perhaps incorrectly, an absolute liability is sometimes referred to as a 'strict liability'

You will find as you research this subject that the Americanized topics will make more reference to strict rather than absolute; there are various web definitions for this A v S but hardly any will break them down to be completely different.

I dare say when considering the merits of a case and taking precedence into consideration, if the word strict comes up in eg; Fred Bloggs v Regina or Anycompany, then you have precedence to go with strict. If Absolute then ditto.

A further consideration comes when you balance the properties of each word and as such 'strict' is not conclusive in its finality, where as Absolute is the pinnacle of definition and is almost impossible to better. For me, I would always tend to refer to Absolute as you will find this frequently in English case law and H&S Acts & Regulations; for example, section 2 sub 3 of the HASAWA 1974 states you WILL (which becomes absolute) create a written H&S policy if you employ more than 4 persons, it is not a strict duty, because it is not flexible whereby there is a degree of flexibility to strict, in addition one persons definition of strict will be different than another, absolute however is pretty much the same no matter who looks at it, final/absolute/the lot/no less etc.

There are instances where the HASAWA under Crown Immunity is referred to as 'strict liability, I am no expert in C.I so you will need to do further research on the subject.

Perhaps to offer you something to consider here, and that is, where I have stated the above 'absolute duty, liability within an Act or Reg; to conduct ones business affairs in this country is covered in part by the HSAWA, this is an extremely strict duty you have to follow this Act and supporting Regulations, once inside the covers your liabilities become 'absolute' where defined so.

It is not always easy to put into words for a short posting such as this without the aid of any copy and paste, and the subject is a diverse one and I simply don't have the time to guide you further at this moment; if you research this (and stick to UK search parameters) you will find one hit leads you to another and so on.

I remembered this link which many I suspect will hopefully find useful.

http://www.peterjepson.com/law/criminal_law.htm

Good luck & welcome.

G

[moros]

Gladiator thanks for the reply.
The example I have in my RRC study notes is to use sections 8 and 9 of the HASAWA to highlight the differences.
Sec 8 - no person shall intentionally or recklessly interfere with........
Sec 9 - No employee shall levy or permit to be levied......

The notes say that sec 8 is strict because although breach is strict, intention or recklessness needs to be proved i.e. there is some flexibilty whereas in sec 9 there are no mitigating circumstances breach leads to liability absolutely.

However in my notes the lecturer gave me it says that in a criminal prosecution you normally have to show Intention, recklessness or negligence EXCEPT where strict liabilty is applied?!?

You can see how confusion arises.

[Gladiator]

I can, and if you peruse thoroughly the link I gave earlier this should really explain it to comply with both sections 8 & 9 of HASAWA.

Come back if not and we will compare it directly against the afore mentioned to get you on the right side of strict & absolute.

G

[Phil]

Right here goes. I dont understand what I am typing but one of my daughters is a second year law student and this is what we have (read: she has) come up with ...

Strict liability and absolute liability are, to all intents and purposes, the same thing. They both mean that only the act need be proven and not intent (mens rea) to gain a conviction. The difference is in possible defences.

In the case of strict liability a defence can be made of having made a reasonable mistake but with absolute liability that defence does not apply, there is also a defence that the act was carried out involuntarily with both types of liability.

I hope that helps because it is as clear as mud to me

[Gladiator]

Phil is basically correct; you will find far more detailed in the link with case law references.

Good luck; it's a minefield for certain.

G

[otto]

Strict liability is liability for an occurance which does not require proof of mens rea (the guilty mind), only the actus rea (the guilty act) needs to be shown.
The burden of proof in these cases rests with the defendent.
Relevent case law includes:
Ellis vs Sheffield gas Consumer's Co. - Strict liability for the torts of contractors where instructed by the principal.
Tarry vs Ashton - Strict liability for actions on or adjoining the highway.
Honeywell and Stein vs Larkin Brothers - Strict liability exists where an indepenent contractor is engaged to carry out and "extra hazardous" activity.
Rylands vs Fletcher - The famous flooded mine case....
Glad and Phil are right - it's a minefield.
Hope these help
Otto