The Doctrine of Strict Liability

The doctrine of strict liability provides a company or an individual with all the responsibilities regarding their products and actions that might cause harm or damages to the consumers irrespective of fault or negligence on their part (Jeremy, 2014). In this respect, a complainant filing a petition based on the doctrine of strict liability does need to prove to the court the deliberate or negligence of the defendant, but they are only supposed to show hoe the defendant actions prompted strict liability as well as show the harm or damages experienced from the products. Nonetheless, the state laws vary from one state to another, and that is why whether a tort or not, is often considered a strict liability absolutely depends on a particular state’s laws. Therefore, anyone filing a lawsuit based on the doctrine of strict liability needs to consult with a professional attorney to avoid collapsing of the case. 

I think the strict liability laws have created many litigation opportunities due to the fact that such cases are easy to be worn by the complainant since they must not prove the negligence so long as they have proven the damages the company’s products or services have inflicted on them. Based on the strict liability, all distributors and sellers/manufacturers of soft drinks are held absolutely liable for the soft drinks that are substandard, even if the fault belongs to the consumers. In this regard, Jeremy Kogan believes that based on this law, some distributors and sellers/manufacturers of soft drinks deceive customers by characterizing these products as dietary supplements as opposed to labeling them as conventional food thus giving them undue advantage to evade specific onerous FDA regulations (Jeremy, 2014). The problem of this, according to Kogan, is that it leads to the thriving of certain soft drinks with lots of sugar, fats, and high levels of energy, thus causing rates of heart bit, rising in blood pressure and acute coronary diseases. 

Reference 

Jeremy Kogan. (2014). Buzzkill: Use of product liability doctrines in litigation against energy drink manufacturers . Loy. Consumer L. Rev. 26,316. http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lclr/vol26/iss2/6