Jump to content

Strict liability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Part of the common law series
Tort law
(Outline)
Trespass to the person
Property torts
Dignitary torts
Negligent torts
Principles of negligence
Strict and absolute liability
Nuisance
Economic torts
Defences
Liability
Remedies
Other topics in tort law
By jurisdiction
Other common law areas

In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant.

Under the strict liability law, if the defendant possesses anything that is inherently dangerous, as specified under the "ultrahazardous" definition, the defendant is then strictly liable for any damages caused by such possession, no matter how careful the defendant is safeguarding them.[1]

In the field of torts, prominent examples of strict liability may include product liability, abnormally dangerous activities (e.g., blasting), intrusion onto another's land by livestock, and ownership of wild animals.[2]

Other than activities specified above (like ownership of wild animals, etc), US courts have historically considered the following activities as "ultrahazardous":[3]

  1. storing flammable liquids in quantity in an urban area
  2. pile driving
  3. blasting
  4. crop dusting
  5. fumigation with cyanide gas
  6. emission of noxious fumes by a manufacturing plant located in a settled area
  7. locating oil wells or refineries in populated communities
  8. test firing solid-fuel rocket motors.

On the other hand, US courts typically rule the following activities as not "ultrahazardous": parachuting, drunk driving, maintaining power lines, and letting water escape from an irrigation ditch.[4]

Traditional criminal offenses that require no element of intent (mens rea) include statutory rape and felony murder.[3]

Tort law[edit]

In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortious intent). The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible. The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous.[5] It discourages reckless behaviour and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. It has the beneficial effect of simplifying and thereby expediting court decisions in these cases, although the application of strict liability may seem unfair or harsh, as in Re Polemis.

Under the English law of negligence and nuisance, even where tortious liability is strict, the defendant may sometimes be liable only for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his act or omission.[citation needed]

An early example of strict liability is the rule Rylands v Fletcher, where it was held that "any person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape". If the owner of a zoo keeps lions and tigers, he is liable if the big cats escape and cause damage or injury.

In strict liability situations, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defense of absence of fault, especially in cases of product liability, where the defense may argue that the defect was the result of the plaintiff's actions and not of the product, that is, no inference of defect should be drawn solely because an accident occurs.[4] If the plaintiff can prove that the defendant knew about the defect before the damages occurred, additional punitive damages can be awarded to the victim in some jurisdictions.

The doctrine's most famous advocates were Learned Hand, Benjamin Cardozo, and Roger J. Traynor.

Strict liability is sometimes distinguished from absolute liability. In this context, an actus reus may be excused from strict liability if due diligence is proved. Absolute liability, however, requires only an actus reus.

Vaccines[edit]

In the United States courts have applied strict liability to vaccines since the Cutter incident in 1955.[6] Some vaccines (e.g. for Lyme disease) have been removed from the market because of unacceptable liability risk to the manufacturer.[7]

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) was enacted in 1986 to make an exception for childhood vaccines that are required for public school attendance. The NCVIA created a no-fault compensation scheme to stabilize a vaccine market adversely affected by an increase in vaccine-related lawsuits, and to facilitate compensation to claimants who found pursuing legitimate vaccine-inflicted injuries too difficult and cost prohibitive.[6][1]

Bicycle–motor vehicle collisions[edit]

A form of strict liability has been supported in law in the Netherlands since the early 1990s for bicycle-motor vehicle collisions.[8] In a nutshell, this means that, in a collision between a car and a cyclist, the driver is deemed to be liable to pay damages and his insurer (motor vehicle insurance is mandatory in the Netherlands, while cyclist insurance is not) must pay the full damages, as long as 1) the collision was unintentional (i.e. neither party, motorist or cyclist, intentionally crashed into the other), and 2) the cyclist was not in error in some way.[8] Even if a cyclist made an error, as long as the collision was still unintentional, the motorist's insurance must still pay half of the damages. This does not apply if the cyclist is under 14 years of age, in which case the motorist must pay full damages.[8] If it can be proved that a cyclist intended to collide with the car, then the cyclist must pay the damages (or their parents in the case of a minor).[8]

General aviation[edit]

The trend toward strict liability in the United States during the mid to late 20th century nearly destroyed the small aircraft industry by the mid 1990s. Production had dropped from a peak of 18,000 units per year in 1978 to under only a few hundred by 1993.[9][10] With a concurrent increase in the cost of liability insurance per airplane rising from $50 in 1962 to $100,000 in 1988, and many underwriters had begun to refuse all new policies.[11][12][13][10]

Criminal law[edit]

Main article: Strict liability (criminal)

The concept of strict liability is also found in criminal law, though the same or similar concept may appear in contexts where the term itself is not used.[citation needed] Strict liability often applies to vehicular traffic offenses: in a speeding case, for example, whether the defendant knew that the posted speed limit was being exceeded is irrelevant; the prosecutor need only prove that the defendant was driving the vehicle in excess of the posted speed limit.

In the United States, strict liability can be determined by looking at the intent of the legislature. If the legislature seems to have purposefully left out a mental state element (mens rea) because they felt mental state need not be proven, it is treated as a strict liability. However, when a statute is silent as to the mental state (mens rea) and it is not clear that the legislature purposely left it out, the ordinary presumption is that a mental state is required for criminal liability. When no mens rea is specified, under the Model Penal Code (MPC), the default mens rea requirement is recklessness, which the MPC defines as "when a person consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk with respect to a material element".[14]

Strict liability laws can also prevent defendants from raising diminished mental capacity defenses, since intent does not need to be proven.[15]

In the English case of Sweet v Parsley (1970), it was held that where a statute creating a crime[16] made no reference to intention, then mens rea would be imputed by the court, so that the crime would not be one of strict liability.


● Praeterintentionally/ultraintencional

The illicit praeter intentionem is the typical expression of objective liability (Minus voluit delinquere et plus deliquit: qui in re illicita versatur, tenetur etiam pro casu),[17] provided for in the various criminal systems;[18] and with a historicity in both Roman criminal law[19] and canon law.[20] The formula "beyond the intention", understood as the excess of the event with respect to the intention, means that the realized event is "more serious than the desired one": an unwanted event may not be contrary to the will, but rather beyond of it. In preterintention there is a relationship between the conduct and the event ("from the action or omission a harmful or dangerous event arises"), and then between the agent and the event ("... more serious than that desired by the agent"): the link of psychic causality is complementary to that of material causality, therefore it determines the projection of the will of the minor event towards the more serious one. In fact, the subject's action is not directed towards the event of the crime, but towards a different result: the death event is characterized by being the involuntary outcome of a progression, albeit maliciously initiated.[21] The inevitable relevance of preterintention as a resolving case for the uncertain border areas between guilt and fraud, has made it necessary to seek a structural concordance with the principle of culpability, with the consequence that it would no longer be acceptable as sufficient to limit oneself to highlighting the objective data of the causation of an event more serious than the desired one causally linked to the malicious conduct of beatings or injuries, requiring, however, the ascertainment of the violation of a preventive precautionary rule of the materialization of the involuntary event since it is unintentional.[22] In common law systems the figure of unintentional homicide is generally found in the category of “Felony-Murder”:[23] still considered fundamental in judicial practice,[24] to respond to requests for justice and to resolve evidentiary problems in the so-called border areas between possible fraud and conscious negligence.[25] In England,[26] however, the legislator has “formally overcome” this category of crime, “conforming” to Scottish criminal law which prides itself on never having known the primitive figure of the Felony-Murder (D. Hume).[27] In Canadian law, this type of murder (Felony-Murder) is at least formally opposed, as it is an expression of objective responsibility.[28] As for the Australian system, this regulates the progressive scheme of the discourse homicide (Unintentional Killing: Manslaughter) also in Section 4° of the Crimes act 1958 (Vic).[29]

To understand the structure of the main crime in which the strict liability model is inevitably used,[30] a comparative interpretation is essential:[31] comparing the realities of common law with those of civil law: be de jure condito/condendo.[32] In the Italian criminal system there is a large literature on the unintentional crime regulated by articles 584, 43, 42, 585 of the penal code and 27 of the constitution: one thesis highlights the objective liability ontology of unintentional homicide, which cannot be converted into negligent homicide; the opposite orientation, due to the art. 27 of the Constitution,[33] deems the rejection of strict liability inevitable in favor of ascertaining culpable liability for unintentional death, and without renouncing the unitary nature of a single crime.[34] The Spanish system, in fact, imitating the solution adopted in the Swiss and Swedish penal codes), charges the offender with two crimes: the voluntary crime of injury and manslaughter (art. 5 c.p. “There is no punishment without malice or negligence” ).[35] In Germany, § 227 StGB provides for the crime of malicious bodily harm resulting in unintentional fatal consequences (charged under § 18 StGB). Conversely, the Austrian StGB in § 86 regulates voluntary personal injuries with lethal outcome, reprimanded under § 4 StGB.[36] In the French code it is regulated in art.222-7 c.p.: "Les violences ayant entraîné la mort sans intent de la donner sont punishments de quinze ans de réclusion criminalelle".[37] Some hypotheses of manslaughter exist in the Dutch penal systems (art. 302 of the Criminal Code), Norwegian (Intentional injury [§§ 22 and 273] and manslaughter [§§ 23 and 275]), Greek (Art. 311[38] of the Criminal Code)[39] and Belgian (art. 401 of the Criminal Code);[40] as well as in the penal code of Kuwait,[41] in the Nicaraguan one and structurally also found in the penal system of New Zealand[42] (Part 8: Crimes against the person, in particular art. 166),[43] Malaysia[44] (Chapter XVI: Crimes against life),[45] Singaporean, Indian[46] (see Art. 300-304° criminal code),[47] Pakistani,[48] Chinese[49] (art. 234² criminal code),[50] Indonesian,[51] Philippine,[52] Irish (so-called Fatal injury),[53] Mongolian[54] (Article 96. Intentional infliction of a severe bodily injury ),[55] and in the Polish, Danish (§ 18),[56] Icelandic (§ 189), Panamanian, Venezuelan,[57] Colombian, Argentine, Uruguayan,[58] Brazilian, Peruvian, Costa Rican, Ecuadorian, and Cuban and Mexican penal codes;[59] and again, in the penal realities of Hungarian (§ 306), Bosnia-Herzegovina (§ 215), Finnish (Kap XXI, § 4), [118] Bulgarian (art. 226 penal code), Japanese (art. 205 c.p.),[60] Congolese (art. 48 c.p.),[61] Egyptian (art. 215), Moroccan (Article 403 c.p.),[62] Algerian (art. 264 c.p.)[63], Tunisian (art. 208 c.p.),[64] Lithuanian,[65] Luxembourg (art. 401, 418), Croatian (art. 4, 39, 43, 45, 95, 98 -100 of the criminal code),[66] Cameroonian[67] (art. 278 of the criminal code),[68] Somali (Art. 441 c.p.),[69] Andorese (art. 24 penal code), Bolivian, Muslim (chibh al-‘amd), Romanian (art. 16, paragraph 5, new penal code), Albanian (art. 88, second paragraph, penal code), Syrian (articles 187, 189 and 536 criminal code), Georgian (art. 11 criminal code 1999) [70]and Chilean;[71] and then, in the Turkish, Russian, South African, Senegalese (Artt. 294-309 c.p.),[72] Slovenian penal systems (articles 4, 19, 129 and 139 of the penal code),[73] and Portuguese.[74] 

                                  .


See also[edit]

References[75][edit]

  1. ^ a b Bentley, Linda (July 3, 2017). "Why vaccine manufacturers are exempt from liability". Sonoran News.
  2. ^ Simmons, Kenneth W. (March 19, 2009). "The Restatement Third of Torts and traditional strict liability: Robust rationales, slender doctrines" (PDF). Boston University School of Law Working Paper. 09–15: 24. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2018-06-02.
  3. ^ a b Hall, Daniel (1996). Criminal law and procedure. Albany NY: Delmar Publishers. pp. 61–65. ISBN 0827367023.
  4. ^ a b Hinckley v. La Mesa R.V. Center, Inc., 158 Cal. App.3d 630, 205 Cal. Rptr. 22 (1984)
  5. ^ Cantú, Charles E. (January 2, 2002). "Distinguishing the Concept of Strict Liability for Ultra-Hazardous Activities from Strict Liability Under Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts: Two Parallel Lines of Reasoning that Should Never Meet" (PDF). University of Akron Law Review. University of Akron School of Law. Retrieved May 2, 2012.[permanent dead link]
  6. ^ a b Offit, Paul A. (2005). The Cutter Incident: How America's First Polio Vaccine Led to the Growing Vaccine Crisis. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-10864-4.
  7. ^ Aronowitz, Robert A. (June 2016). "The Rise and Fall of the Lyme Disease Vaccines: A Cautionary Tale for Risk Interventions in American Medicine and Public Health". The Milbank Quarterly. 90 (2): 250–277. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00663.x. ISSN 0887-378X. PMC 3460208. PMID 22709388.
  8. ^ a b c d Mark Wagenbuur (21 February 2013). "Strict liability in the Netherlands". BicycleDutch website. Retrieved 5 December 2013.
  9. ^ McCain, United States Senator John. "United States Senator John McCain". www.mccain.senate.gov. Archived from the original on 2017-12-12. Retrieved 2018-07-19.
  10. ^ a b H., Kister, Thomas (1 January 1998). "General Aviation Revitalization Act: Its Effect on Manufacturers". Defense Counsel Journal. 65 (1).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. ^ "The rise and fall of general aviation: Product liability, market structure, and technological innovation". Archived from the original on 2017-07-11. Retrieved 2018-07-19.
  12. ^ http://www.bls.gov/mfp/mprkh93.pdf [bare URL PDF]
  13. ^ AOPA Pilot staff, "Cessna Suspends Production of All Piston Models," AOPA Pilot magazine, July 1986, pp.24-25, Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association, Washington, D.C.
  14. ^ Lee, Cynthia (2009). Criminal Law Cases and Materials. F. Strict Liability Crimes: WEST A Thomas Reuters Business. pp. 219–221, 989. ISBN 9780314151285.
  15. ^ Joel Samaha (briefed by) (June 9, 2001). "Garnett v. State". Department of Sociology at the University of Minnesota. Retrieved September 14, 2011.
  16. ^ In this case, the crime was the statutory crime of "being concerned in the management of premises used for smoking cannabis".
  17. ^ Cipolla, Bartolomeo (1543). Consilia criminalia (in Latin). Lyon.
  18. ^ Hall, Jerome (2010). General Principles of Criminal Law. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. ISBN 978-1-58477-498-3.
  19. ^ Franciosi, Gennaro (2014-11-07). Corso storico istituzionale di Diritto romano (in Italian). Giappichelli. ISBN 978-88-348-5005-3.
  20. ^ "Ventrella-CV-D@S-2007". www.dirittoestoria.it. Retrieved 2024-06-28.
  21. ^ Estrada, Abelardo C. (2008). Criminal Law: Made easy for students, bar examinees & practitioners. Rex Bookstore, Inc. ISBN 978-971-23-5207-2.
  22. ^ Bellomo, Francesco (2022). Sistema breve del diritto penale (in Italian). Diritto e Scienza. ISBN 978-88-96916-14-8.
  23. ^ "‪Strict-Liability como forma de imputación jurídico-penal‬". scholar.google.de. Retrieved 2024-06-28.
  24. ^ Crump, David (1985). In Defense of the Felony Murder Doctrine. South Texas College of Law.
  25. ^ Fletcher, George P. (2007-06-11). The Grammar of Criminal Law: American, Comparative, and International Volume One: Foundations. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 978-0-19-510310-6.
  26. ^ Fletcher, George P. (2000-06-29). Rethinking Criminal Law. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-535036-4.
  27. ^ Horder, Jeremy (2022). Ashworth's Principles of Criminal Law. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-289738-1.
  28. ^ Binder, Guyora (2012-05-09). Felony Murder. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-8170-1.
  29. ^ Reed, Alan; Bohlander, Michael (2022-08-22). Fault in Criminal Law: A Research Companion. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-000-63052-7.
  30. ^ Weinreb, Lloyd (1986-07-01). "Desert, Punishment, and Criminal Responsibility". Law and Contemporary Problems. 49 (3): 47–80. ISSN 0023-9186.
  31. ^ Zamboni, Mauro (2018-11-01). Teoría evolutiva y positivismo jurídico : un matrimonio posible (in Spanish). Universidad Externado. ISBN 978-958-790-096-5.
  32. ^ The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science. Northwestern University School of Law. 1957.
  33. ^ Amato, Astolfo Di (2013). Criminal Law in Italy. Kluwer Law International. ISBN 978-90-411-5170-4.
  34. ^ Justice, United States Department of (1963). Administrative Decisions Under Immigration & Nationality Laws. U.S. Government Printing Office.
  35. ^ Ambos, Kai (2021). Treatise on International Criminal Law. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-284426-2.
  36. ^ Torrão, Fernando (2023-09-08). Direito Penal - Parte Geral: teoria da infração e formas especiais do crime (in Brazilian Portuguese). Leya. ISBN 978-989-40-1444-7.
  37. ^ Cunningham, Sally (2016-05-13). Criminal Liability for Non-Aggressive Death. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-15786-1.
  38. ^ "Υπουργική Απόφαση Γ.Υ.39α/2012 - ΦΕΚ Β-1002/2-4-2012". e-nomothesia.gr | Τράπεζα Πληροφοριών Νομοθεσίας (in Greek). 2016-01-31. Retrieved 2024-06-30.
  39. ^ Anagnostopoulos, Ilias G.; Magliveras, Konstantinos D. (2023-10-25). Criminal Law in Greece. Kluwer Law International B.V. ISBN 978-94-035-3867-9.
  40. ^ Pradel, Jean (2016-09-14). Droit pénal comparé (in French). Groupe Lefebvre Dalloz. ISBN 978-2-247-15084-7.
  41. ^ Garvey, Stephen P. (2020-05-25). Guilty Acts, Guilty Minds. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-092433-1.
  42. ^ "Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 13 April 2023), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation". legislation.govt.nz. Retrieved 2024-06-30.
  43. ^ Simester, A. P.; Brookbanks, Warren J. (2019). Principles of Criminal Law. Thomson Reuters New Zealand Limited. ISBN 978-1-988553-79-5.
  44. ^ Yeo, Stanley Meng Heong; Morgan, Neil A.; Chan, Wing Cheong (2018). Criminal Law in Malaysia and Singapore. LexisNexis. ISBN 978-981-4798-29-7.
  45. ^ "Malaysia: Penal Code". Refworld. Retrieved 2024-06-30.
  46. ^ Yeo, Stanley Meng Heong (1997). Fault in Homicide: Towards a Schematic Approach to the Fault Elements for Murder and Involuntary Manslaughter in England, Australia and India. Federation Press. ISBN 978-1-86287-275-2.
  47. ^ "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1569253/". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  48. ^ "Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860)". www.pakistani.org. Retrieved 2024-06-30.
  49. ^ "https://www.warnathgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/China-Criminal-Code.pdf" (PDF). {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  50. ^ Wang, Shizhou (2017-11-20). Criminal Law in China. Kluwer Law International B.V. ISBN 978-90-411-9528-9.
  51. ^ Santoso, Topo (2023-02-23). Principles of Indonesian Criminal Law. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5099-5094-2.
  52. ^ AGELLON, Atty DEOGENES NAMBAYAN (2021-03-14). Criminal Law Case Digests: And Review Materials on the Revised Penal Code and Other Philippine Penal Laws (1904-2019). Xlibris Corporation. ISBN 978-1-6641-4710-2.
  53. ^ Campbell, Liz; Kilcommins, Shane; OSullivan, Catherine; Cusack, Alan (2021). Criminal Law in Ireland: Cases and Commentary. Clarus Press Limited. ISBN 978-1-911611-40-0.
  54. ^ USA, IBP Inc (2015-06). Mongolia Criminal Laws, Regulations and Procedures Handbook - Strategic Information, Regulations, Procedures. International Business Publications, USA. ISBN 978-1-5145-0761-2. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  55. ^ "https://www.warnathgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mongolia-Criminal-Code.pdf" (PDF). {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  56. ^ Langsted, Lars Bo; Garde, Peter; Greve, Vagn; Elholm, Thomas (2019-08-05). Criminal Law in Denmark. Kluwer Law International B.V. ISBN 978-94-035-1355-3.
  57. ^ Socorro, Enrique Lagrange (1962). Le Délit préterintentionnel et son application en droit pénal vénézuélien (in French). l'auteur.
  58. ^ "https://uruguay.leyderecho.org/preterintencion/". {{cite web}}: Check |archive-url= value (help); External link in |title= (help)
  59. ^ Cañizares, Enrique Roldán (2019-05-08). Luis Jiménez de Asúa.Derecho penal, República, Exilio (in Spanish). Midac, SL. ISBN 978-84-1324-201-9.
  60. ^ "Penal Code - English - Japanese Law Translation". www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp. Retrieved 2024-06-29.
  61. ^ Tshimbawu, Tshitenge (2019-09-17). CODE GAULTHIET (in French). Lulu.com. ISBN 978-0-244-21814-0.
  62. ^ "Penal Code of Morocco (document, French) | Women's Learning Partnership". learningpartnership.org. Retrieved 2024-06-29.
  63. ^ "Code Pénal". droit.mjustice.dz. Retrieved 2024-06-29.
  64. ^ "Penal Code of Tunisia (document, French) | Women's Learning Partnership". learningpartnership.org. Retrieved 2024-06-29.
  65. ^ e-seimas.lrs.lt https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalActPrint/lt?jfwid=rivwzvpvg&documentId=a84fa232877611e5bca4ce385a9b7048&category=TAD. Retrieved 2024-06-29. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  66. ^ "Croatian's penal code" (PDF) (PDF). {{cite web}}: Check |archive-url= value (help)
  67. ^ "https://www.juriafrica.com/lex/art-278-code-penal-cameroun-20738.htm". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  68. ^ Juridis Périodique - Numéro : 32 (in French). Presses univresitaires d'Afr.
  69. ^ "Somali penal code" (PDF) (PDF). {{cite web}}: Check |archive-url= value (help)
  70. ^ 2, 2017 - Journal of Law, Tbilisi State University. "https://jlaw.tsu.ge/index.php/JLaw/article/download/2400/2549/3068". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  71. ^ Reed, Alan; Bohlander, Michael (2018-10-03). Homicide in Criminal Law: A Research Companion. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-01629-2.
  72. ^ Langevin, Louise (2008). Rapports sociaux de sexe-genre et droit: repenser le droit (in French). Archives contemporaines. ISBN 978-2-914610-79-7.
  73. ^ Dubber, Markus D.; Hörnle, Tatjana (2014-11-27). The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-165459-6.
  74. ^ Horder, Jeremy (2007-12-10). Homicide Law in Comparative Perspective. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84731-385-0.
  75. ^ Ventrella Mancini, Carmela (2000). "Il delitto preterintenzionale nell'ordinamento canonico: spunti di comparazione con il diritto penale italiano".

[1]

  1. ^ "Ventrella-CV-D@S-2007". www.dirittoestoria.it. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strict_liability&oldid=1231802311"