What is strict liability?

healyscanlonveugelergannon • July 15, 2016

As this blog has discussed on many occasions, manufacturers are expected to produce products that are safe for consumers to use. However, many of these manufacturers fall short of these expectations. In these cases, people are sometimes injured by products they have purchased in the marketplace. Some of these injuries can be severe and cause long lasting damage.

When this occurs, Illinois residents may need to seek compensation for their injuries. This compensation can include medical expenses, lost wages and more. Without this compensation, consumers may be left to shoulder the burden of this difficult injury on their own.

In order to hold some companies responsible for the dangerous products they produce, the doctrine of strict liability has been created. Strict liability holds companies responsible for specifically dangerous products that they produce even when they have not been specifically negligent. This allows consumers to seek the legal relief they need when they are injured, even if the company’s carelessness cannot be shown to have caused those injuries to occur.

In order for  strict liability  to apply, a product must contain an unreasonably dangerous defect, and have injured a consumer. The defect in the product must have caused the injury while the product was used as it was intended. Finally, the product must be in substantially the same condition as the time the product was sold, and to apply to a seller, that seller must routinely sell that kind of product.

When these conditions are met, consumers may be entitled to compensation from the manufacturer whether not that manufacturer was negligent. It is important for people who have been injured by products to understand their legal rights. For specific legal advice following an injury from an  Illinois defective product , individuals should consider speaking with an attorney about product liability laws.

April 13, 2026
Attorneys Michael P. Scanlon and Timothy J. Ganshirt secured a $1,000,000.00 Verdict for their client, Jane Doe. Jane Doe was sexually assaulted by her acupuncturist when she went to his office for treatment. Prior to trial, the Defendant did not make a settlement offer. At trial, the Defendant's attorneys argued that Plaintiff consented and recommended that the jury award a maximum of $7,000 to $8,000 to the Plaintiff, if the jury were to award anything. Instead, the jury returned a verdict for $1,000,000.00. Michael and Tim are filing a motion to add interest, fees, and costs to the verdict. If granted, thetotal judgment could reach up to $1,234,333.06.  This case highlights the importance of making sure that you choose attorneys who are willing to go to trial to ensure your case gets the full value it deserves.
March 25, 2026
Matthew M. Gannon and Michael P. Scanlon secured $40,000,000 for an operating engineer who suffered from third degree burns following a blast at an industrial facility.