Strict Liability

Strict Liability: A Key Principle in Asbestos Litigation

Introduction
Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds parties responsible for damages caused by their actions or products, regardless of intent or negligence. In the context of asbestos litigation, strict liability has played a pivotal role in holding manufacturers and distributors accountable for harm caused by asbestos exposure. This principle is particularly significant in cases involving asbestos-related diseases like mesothelioma, as it allows plaintiffs to seek compensation without proving that the defendant acted negligently or with malicious intent.

Historical Background
The concept of strict liability emerged in the 19th century as a way to address harm caused by inherently dangerous activities or products. In the mid-20th century, as the dangers of asbestos became widely recognized, strict liability began to be applied in asbestos-related lawsuits. Landmark cases, such as Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963), established the foundation for strict liability in product liability law. By the 1970s and 1980s, as the asbestos crisis unfolded, courts increasingly relied on strict liability to hold companies accountable for the widespread harm caused by asbestos-containing products. This shift was driven by evidence that many manufacturers were aware of the health risks associated with asbestos but failed to warn consumers or workers.

Legal and Scientific Context
Strict liability in asbestos cases typically applies to manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of asbestos-containing products. Under this doctrine, plaintiffs must demonstrate that:

The product was defective or unreasonably dangerous.
The defect caused the plaintiff’s injury.
The product was used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner.

Scientific findings linking asbestos exposure to diseases like mesothelioma, asbestosis, and lung cancer have been critical in establishing causation in strict liability cases. For example, studies by Dr. Irving Selikoff in the 1960s provided irrefutable evidence of the health risks posed by asbestos, strengthening plaintiffs' arguments in court. Additionally, strict liability has been instrumental in addressing corporate cover-ups, where companies knowingly concealed the dangers of asbestos to protect profits.

Impact and Modern Relevance
Strict liability remains a cornerstone of asbestos litigation today. It has enabled thousands of victims to secure compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. The doctrine has also influenced regulatory changes, such as the requirement for warning labels on asbestos-containing products and stricter workplace safety standards. However, the application of strict liability varies across jurisdictions, and some courts have imposed limitations, such as requiring proof of a direct link between the product and the plaintiff’s exposure.

In modern times, strict liability continues to shape the legal landscape as new cases emerge involving secondary exposure (e.g., family members of asbestos workers) and environmental contamination. The principle also plays a role in ongoing efforts to hold companies accountable for legacy asbestos liabilities, even as many have filed for bankruptcy to limit their financial exposure.

Example or Case Study
One notable example of strict liability in asbestos litigation is the case of Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation (1973). This landmark case was the first to establish that manufacturers of asbestos-containing products could be held strictly liable for failing to warn users of the dangers associated with their products. The decision set a precedent for thousands of subsequent lawsuits and underscored the importance of strict liability in protecting public health.