Differentiate_the_Doctrine_of_Strict_Liability_from_the_Doctrine_of_Absolute_Liability.

The doctrines of strict liability and absolute liability are closely-related legal concepts defining the level to which those involved in the manufacture, development, marketing, sale, or use of a product are liable for the negative effects of the product (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2006, pp. 422-423). The doctrine of strict liability holds that all companies and individuals in a product’s value-chain share can be held liable for it’s effects provided that the product is defective and dangerous and that the product’s defective condition is either known or knowable by someone in the value-chain (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2006, p. 422). As an example, if I were a beer distributor, and a shipment of beer from Trout River Brewery contaminated with cleaning solution made it to my warehouse and was shipped to retail stores and to consumers, making them sick, I could be held liable for the harm done, even though I was unaware of the contamination. Also liable would be the brewery and retail stores accepting my deliveries. The key point here is that there was a clear lapse in quality-control at the brewery – this defect is knowable, and could have been prevented, making the entire value-chain liable for the illness under the strict liability doctrine. This doctrine seems unfair to me, as there is no way for me, as a distributor, to know about or to prevent the contamination, yet, I bear responsibility for the snafu. My uneasy feelings surrounding strict liability are dwarfed by those I feel regarding absolute liability. As an extension of the strict-liability document, the absolute liability doctrine expands product liability beyond known and knowable defects to include the unknown and unknowable effects, and does not require that products be defective (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2006, pp. 422-423). Based on the cases set forth by Carroll & Buchholtz (2006, p. 422), precedent seems to indicate that shared liability throughout a products value-chain is less well-defined for absolute liability than for strict liability. All of the cases presented for this doctrine involve either manufacturers themselves or those directly responsible for exposure, like employers – this is largely a function of the doctrine chosen as applicable to a specific case, and not due to specific types of cases automatically falling within a specific doctrine. This perspective is supported in an analysis of the two doctrines by by Law professor Asif Tufal (n.d.) on his web site. Based on this, it seems to me that my beer distribution company may have less to fear under this doctrine – if a standard beer additive was found to cause disease after prolonged use, the beer manufacturers could be held liable, but there is no indication that a distributor would be found responsible by the courts. Even though my company would be spared, there is something that seems innately wrong about this doctrine to me – it fails my gag test. Holding a company responsible for the harm caused by a material thought by all to be safe – a material for which is is not scientifically possible to predict harm, and which government regulators have deemed safe for use – seems like a societal failing to me. Companies acting in good faith to create products that consumers want and making every attempt to ensure the safety of their products shouldn’t be sued out of business due to unforeseeable issues, however tragic. Without either willful deception or negligence, I don’t see how liability can exist. _____________________________________ Carroll, A.B. and Buchholtz, A.K. (2006). Business & society: Ethics and stakeholder management. Thomson South-western.