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 objective liability[14] occurs when the legal system attributes an offense to a subject,[15] using only the causal link as the attribution criterion.[16] <<Outcome responsibility, though inescapable, can fairly be imposed only on those who possess a sufficient general capacity for decision and action. Capacity can for this purpose be tested by asking what a given person normally achieves when he tries. It has, however, often been thought that responsibility for a particular action requires something further; a capacity on the part of the person to have acted differently given all the factors, external and internal, that were present on the occasion in question. But this sort of anti-deterministic capacity can- not exist. So my theory of responsibility, though it does not require determinism to be true, is compatible with it. The difference between fault and strict liability in this respect is merely that a person guilty of fault must have, besides a general capacity for decision and action, the ability to succeed most of the time in doing the sort of thing that would on this occasion have averted the harm. A person held strictly liable must have the same general capacity but need not have this special ability>>.[17]

<<Supporters of objective fault hold that responsibility does not vary according to the contents of the accused's mind. Rather it should be assessed upon the basis of the mental attitude the dispassionate observer would infer from the bare fact of the accused having acted as they did. The avowed advantages of such an approach are both evidential and substantive. If A gives B a savage beating so that he dies, it is easier to prove that this conduct is the conduct of someone who is bent on killing than to prove that A was bent on killing. From the substantive point of view the advantage is that requiring subjective fault ignores the fact that sometimes we feel justified in blaming people lacking a criminal 'intent'. People who cause harm without purpose or awareness distance themselves morally from reasonable people. They exhibit a dangerous and per- haps frightening character defect for which they properly deserve condemnation and punishment. Reflective of such ideas, the offence of stalking [...] includes a fault element which does not require proof of a subjective mental element. It is enough that a reasonable person would realise that their conduct would cause the victim to feel threatened or harassed>>.[18] The notion of objective responsibility is therefore functional to the notion of presupposed causal relationship:[19] a causality that is extremely poor in content is that of the sine qua non condition,[20] which reduces the causal link to a mechanistic connection between a conduct and a naturalistic event.[21] Conversely,adequate/scientific causality comes closer to satisfying the principle of guilt in its subjective dimension.[22] Not unlike the causal relationship, strict liability can also appear in the form of commission or omission.[23] Some countries, such as England, consider strict liability an almost unavoidable phenomenon, to be accepted in compliance with the practical needs of evidential simplification in court proceedings.[24] A second group of countries such as, for example, Germany, Austria, Spain and Portugal are inspired, at a declamatory level, by the principle of guilt (Schuldprinzip) in its narrowest dimension,[25] which only admits forms of malicious and negligent accusation.[26] In fact, one of the most widespread declamatory statements in the legal literature of German culture (which is also denied by the operational rules actually practiced) consists in the assertion of the overcoming of the forms of objective liability, which, in fact, has been repealed by legislation.[27] A third situation is the Italian one, where the principle of strict liability is present at a legal level, as in England, but does not enjoy (unlike England) the favor of the doctrine (which is inspired by the German model) and is made the subject of notable limitations by the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court.[28] Generally speaking, the empirical results of judicial practice label as unsuccessful the attempts to free oneself from the use of the strict liability model in those particular border sectors between fraud and negligence: we are talking about lying models of disguised strict liability.[29]


● 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),[30] provided for in the various criminal systems;[31] and with a historicity in both Roman criminal law[32] and canon law.[33] 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":[34] 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"),[35] and then between the agent and the event ("... more serious than that desired by the agent"):[36] 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.[37] 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.[38] The inevitable relevance of preterintention as a resolving case for the uncertain border areas between guilt and fraud,[39] has made it necessary to seek a structural concordance with the principle of culpability,[40] 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,[41] requiring, however, the ascertainment of the violation of a preventive precautionary rule of the materialization of the involuntary event since it is unintentional.[42] In common law systems the figure of unintentional homicide is generally found in the category of “Felony-Murder”:[43] still considered fundamental in judicial practice,[44] to respond to requests for justice and to resolve evidentiary problems in the so-called border areas between possible fraud and conscious negligence.[45] In England,[46] however, the legislator has “formally overcome” this category of crime,[47] “conforming” to Scottish criminal law which prides itself on never having known the primitive figure of the Felony-Murder (D. Hume).[48] In Canadian law, this type of murder (Felony-Murder) is at least formally opposed, as it is an expression of objective responsibility.[49] As for the Australian system,[50] this regulates the progressive scheme of the discourse homicide (Unintentional Killing: Manslaughter)[51] also in Section 4° of the Crimes act 1958 (Vic).[52]

To understand the structure of the main crime in which the strict liability model is inevitably used,[53] a comparative interpretation is essential:[54] comparing the realities of common law with those of civil law: be de jure condito/condendo.[55] 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[56] 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,[57] 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.[58] The Spanish system, in fact, imitating the solution adopted in the Swiss[59][60] and Swedish[61] penal codes),[62] charges the offender with two crimes: the voluntary crime of injury and manslaughter[63] (art. 5 c.p.[64] “There is no punishment without malice or negligence” ).[65] In Germany,[66] § 227 StGB provides for the crime of malicious bodily harm resulting in unintentional fatal consequences (charged under § 18 StGB).[67] Conversely, the Austrian StGB in § 86[68] regulates voluntary personal injuries with lethal outcome, reprimanded under § 4 StGB.[69] In the French code it is regulated in art. 222-7 c.p.[70] Some hypotheses of manslaughter exist in the Dutch penal systems[71] (art. 302 of the Criminal Code),[72] Norwegian[73] (Intentional injury [§§ 22 and 273] and manslaughter [§§ 23 and 275]),[74] Greek (Art. 311[75] of the Criminal Code)[76] and Belgian (art. 401 of the Criminal Code);[77][78] as well as in the penal code of Kuwait,[79][80] in the Nicaraguan one and structurally also found in the penal system of New Zealand[81] (Part 8: Crimes against the person, in particular art. 166),[82] Malaysia[83] (Chapter XVI: Crimes against life),[84] Singaporean,[85][86] Indian[87] (see Art. 300-304° criminal code),[88] Pakistani,[89] Chinese[90] (art. 234² criminal code),[91] Indonesian,[92] Philippine,[93] Irish (so-called Fatal injury),[94] Mongolian[95] (Article 96. Intentional infliction of a severe bodily injury ),[96] and in the Polish,[97] Danish,[98][99] Icelandic,[100] Panamanian,[101] Venezuelan,[102] Colombian,[103] Argentine,[104] Uruguayan,[105] Brazilian,[106] Peruvian,[107] Costa Rican, Ecuadorian,[108] and Cuban[109] and Mexican penal codes;[110][111] and again, in the penal realities of Hungarian (§ 306),[112] Bosnia-Herzegovina (§ 215),[113] nigerian,[114] Finnish (Kap XXI, § 4),[115] Bulgarian (art. 226 penal code),[116] Japanese (art. 205 c.p.),[117] Congolese (art. 48 c.p.),[118] Egyptian (art. 215), Moroccan (Article 403 c.p.),[119] Algerian (art. 264 c.p.)[120], Tunisian (art. 208 c.p.),[121] Lithuanian,[122] Luxembourg (art. 401, 418), Croatian (art. 4, 39, 43, 45, 95, 98 -100 of the criminal code),[123] Cameroonian[124] (art. 278 of the criminal code),[125] Somali (Art. 441 c.p.),[126] Andorese (art. 24 penal code),[127] Bolivian,[128] Muslim (chibh al-‘amd), Romanian (art. 16, paragraph 5, new penal code),[129] Albanian (art. 88, second paragraph, penal code),[130] Syrian (articles 187, 189 and 536 criminal code),[131] Georgian (art. 11 criminal code 1999) [132]and Chilean;[133] and then, in the Turkish,[134] Russian,[135] South African,[136] Senegalese (Artt. 294-309 c.p.),[137] Slovenian penal systems[138] (articles 4, 19, 129 and 139 of the penal code),[139] and Portuguese.[140][141] 

                                  .

See also[edit]

References[142][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. ^ Cappelletti, Marco (2022). Justifying Strict Liability: A Comparative Analysis in Legal Reasoning. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-285986-0.
  15. ^ Shute, Stephen; Simester, A. P. (2002). Criminal Law Theory: Doctrines of the General Part. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-924349-5.
  16. ^ Dyson, Matthew (2015-07-02). Comparing Tort and Crime: Learning from across and within Legal Systems. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-08048-5.
  17. ^ Honoré, Tony (1999-05-19). Responsibility and Fault. Hart Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84113-005-7.
  18. ^ Wilson, William (2003). Criminal Law: Doctrine and Theory. Longman. ISBN 978-0-582-47301-0.
  19. ^ Kaplan, John; Weisberg, Robert; Binder, Guyora (2021-01-31). Criminal Law: Cases and Materials. Aspen Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5438-3115-3.
  20. ^ FINKEL, Norman J.; Finkel, Norman J. (2009-06-30). Commonsense Justice: Jurors' Notions of the Law. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-03687-1.
  21. ^ Judge), David (Professor of Criminal Justice Ormerod, University College London and Deputy High Court; Ormerod, David; College), Karl (Lecturer in Law at Exeter College Laird, University of Oxford and a Senior Retained Lecturer at Pembroke (2020-06-22). Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod's Text, Cases, and Materials on Criminal Law. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-883194-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  22. ^ Ambos, Kai (2021). Treatise on International Criminal Law. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-284426-2.
  23. ^ Fletcher, George P. (2000-06-29). Rethinking Criminal Law. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-988130-7.
  24. ^ Ashworth, Andrew; Horder, Jeremy (2013-05-16). Principles of Criminal Law. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-967268-4.
  25. ^ Dubber, Markus; H?rnle, Tatjana (2014-03-27). Criminal Law: A Comparative Approach. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-103068-0.
  26. ^ Reed, Alan; Bohlander, Michael (2022-08-22). Fault in Criminal Law: A Research Companion. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-000-63052-7.
  27. ^ Gray, Anthony (2021-02-25). The Evolution from Strict Liability to Fault in the Law of Torts. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5099-4100-1.
  28. ^ Shute, Stephen; Simester, A. P. (2002). Criminal Law Theory: Doctrines of the General Part. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-924349-5.
  29. ^ Licci, Giorgio (2014-03-14). Modelli nel diritto penale: Filogenesi del linguaggio penalistico. II edizione (in Italian). Giappichelli. ISBN 978-88-348-4731-2.
  30. ^ Cipolla, Bartolomeo (1543). Consilia criminalia (in Latin). Lyon.
  31. ^ Hall, Jerome (2010). General Principles of Criminal Law. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. ISBN 978-1-58477-498-3.
  32. ^ Franciosi, Gennaro (2014-11-07). Corso storico istituzionale di Diritto romano (in Italian). Giappichelli. ISBN 978-88-348-5005-3.
  33. ^ "Ventrella-CV-D@S-2007". www.dirittoestoria.it. Retrieved 2024-06-28.
  34. ^ 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.
  35. ^ Laufer, William S.; Adler, Freda. Advances in Criminological Theory, Volume 1. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4128-1647-2.
  36. ^ Herring, Jonathan (2012-04-19). Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-964625-8.
  37. ^ Reed, Alan; Bohlander, Michael (2016-04-15). General Defences in Criminal Law: Domestic and Comparative Perspectives. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-12954-7.
  38. ^ Estrada, Abelardo C. (2008). Criminal Law: Made easy for students, bar examinees & practitioners. Rex Bookstore, Inc. ISBN 978-971-23-5207-2.
  39. ^ Mazzacuva, Franesco (2017-11-30). Le pene nascoste: Topografia delle sanzioni punitive e modulazione dello statuto garantistico (in Italian). Giappichelli. ISBN 978-88-921-1166-0.
  40. ^ Reed, Alan; Bohlander, Michael (2016-04-15). General Defences in Criminal Law: Domestic and Comparative Perspectives. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-12954-7.
  41. ^ Ambos, Kai (2021). Treatise on International Criminal Law. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-284426-2.
  42. ^ Bellomo, Francesco (2022). Sistema breve del diritto penale (in Italian). Diritto e Scienza. ISBN 978-88-96916-14-8.
  43. ^ "‪Strict-Liability como forma de imputación jurídico-penal‬". scholar.google.de. Retrieved 2024-06-28.
  44. ^ Crump, David (1985). In Defense of the Felony Murder Doctrine. South Texas College of Law.
  45. ^ 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.
  46. ^ Fletcher, George P. (2000-06-29). Rethinking Criminal Law. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-535036-4.
  47. ^ Lorente, Adrián Rangil. Algunas cuestiones sobre Derecho Penal de la Unión Europea (in Spanish). Adrián Rangil Lorente.
  48. ^ Horder, Jeremy (2022). Ashworth's Principles of Criminal Law. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-289738-1.
  49. ^ Binder, Guyora (2012-05-09). Felony Murder. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-8170-1.
  50. ^ Amend-Traut, Anja; Oestmann, Peter (2024-06-17). Von Bußen und Strafen: Gerichtliche Verfolgung von Unrecht zwischen Mittelalter und Neuzeit (in German). Böhlau Köln. ISBN 978-3-412-53044-0.
  51. ^ Binder, Guyora (2012-05-09). Felony Murder. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-8170-1.
  52. ^ Reed, Alan; Bohlander, Michael (2022-08-22). Fault in Criminal Law: A Research Companion. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-000-63052-7.
  53. ^ Weinreb, Lloyd (1986-07-01). "Desert, Punishment, and Criminal Responsibility". Law and Contemporary Problems. 49 (3): 47–80. doi:10.2307/1191625. ISSN 0023-9186. JSTOR 1191625.
  54. ^ Zamboni, Mauro (2018-11-01). Teoría evolutiva y positivismo jurídico : un matrimonio posible (in Spanish). Universidad Externado. ISBN 978-958-790-096-5.
  55. ^ The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science. Northwestern University School of Law. 1957.
  56. ^ "Italy Penal Code". resourceequity.org. 2019-09-30. Retrieved 2024-07-02.
  57. ^ Amato, Astolfo Di (2013). Criminal Law in Italy. Kluwer Law International. ISBN 978-90-411-5170-4.
  58. ^ Justice, United States Department of (1963). Administrative Decisions Under Immigration & Nationality Laws. U.S. Government Printing Office.
  59. ^ Petrig, Anna; Zurkinden, Nadine (2015). Swiss Criminal Law. Dike. ISBN 978-3-03751-738-3.
  60. ^ "Swiss penal code" (PDF).
  61. ^ Reed, Alan; Bohlander, Michael (2018-10-03). Homicide in Criminal Law: A Research Companion. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-01629-2.
  62. ^ Regeringskansliet, Regeringen och (2015-06-11). "The Swedish Criminal Code". Regeringskansliet. Retrieved 2024-07-02.
  63. ^ Winter, Lorena Bachmaier; García, Antonio del Moral (2020-03-20). Criminal Law in Spain. Kluwer Law International B.V. ISBN 978-94-035-2132-9.
  64. ^ "Spanish penal code" (PDF).
  65. ^ Ambos, Kai (2021). Treatise on International Criminal Law. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-284426-2.
  66. ^ Bohlander, Michael (2008-12-18). Principles of German Criminal Law. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84731-479-6.
  67. ^ "Infliction of bodily harm causing death (Section 227, German Criminal Code) | Lewik". www.lewik.org. Retrieved 2024-07-02.
  68. ^ "austrian penal code" (PDF).
  69. ^ Dubber, Markus D.; H?rnle, Tatjana (2014-11-27). The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-165460-2.
  70. ^ Elliott, Catherine (May 2001). French Criminal Law. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-99307-8.
  71. ^ "Netherlands | LEGISLATIONLINE". legislationline.org. Retrieved 2024-07-02.
  72. ^ Reed, Alan; Bohlander, Michael (2018-10-03). Homicide in Criminal Law: A Research Companion. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-01629-2.
  73. ^ Andenæs, Johannes (2004). The General Part of the Criminal Law of Norway. W.S. Hein & Company.
  74. ^ "The Penal Code - Lovdata". lovdata.no. Retrieved 2024-07-02.
  75. ^ "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.
  76. ^ Anagnostopoulos, Ilias G.; Magliveras, Konstantinos D. (2023-10-25). Criminal Law in Greece. Kluwer Law International B.V. ISBN 978-94-035-3867-9.
  77. ^ Lambinet (dir.), France; Collectif (2017-08-23). L'élément moral en droit: Une vision transversale (in French). Anthemis. ISBN 978-2-8072-0104-0.
  78. ^ Pradel, Jean (2016-09-14). Droit pénal comparé (in French). Groupe Lefebvre Dalloz. ISBN 978-2-247-15084-7.
  79. ^ "Kuwait penal code" (PDF).
  80. ^ Garvey, Stephen P. (2020-05-25). Guilty Acts, Guilty Minds. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-092433-1.
  81. ^ "Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 13 April 2023), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation". legislation.govt.nz. Retrieved 2024-06-30.
  82. ^ Simester, A. P.; Brookbanks, Warren J. (2019). Principles of Criminal Law. Thomson Reuters New Zealand Limited. ISBN 978-1-988553-79-5.
  83. ^ Yeo, Stanley Meng Heong; Morgan, Neil A.; Chan, Wing Cheong (2018). Criminal Law in Malaysia and Singapore. LexisNexis. ISBN 978-981-4798-29-7.
  84. ^ "Malaysia: Penal Code". Refworld. Retrieved 2024-06-30.
  85. ^ Yeo, Stanley Meng Heong; Morgan, Neil A.; Chan, Wing Cheong (2022). Criminal Law in Singapore. LexisNexis. ISBN 978-981-5019-09-4.
  86. ^ "Penal Code 1871 - Singapore Statutes Online". sso.agc.gov.sg. Retrieved 2024-07-02.
  87. ^ 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.
  88. ^ "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1569253/". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  89. ^ "Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860)". www.pakistani.org. Retrieved 2024-06-30.
  90. ^ "https://www.warnathgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/China-Criminal-Code.pdf" (PDF). {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  91. ^ Wang, Shizhou (2017-11-20). Criminal Law in China. Kluwer Law International B.V. ISBN 978-90-411-9528-9.
  92. ^ Santoso, Topo (2023-02-23). Principles of Indonesian Criminal Law. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5099-5094-2.
  93. ^ 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.
  94. ^ 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.
  95. ^ USA, IBP Inc (June 2015). Mongolia Criminal Laws, Regulations and Procedures Handbook - Strategic Information, Regulations, Procedures. International Business Publications, USA. ISBN 978-1-5145-0761-2.
  96. ^ "https://www.warnathgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mongolia-Criminal-Code.pdf" (PDF). {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  97. ^ "Polish penal code" (PDF).
  98. ^ "DANISH CRIMINAL CODE: ENGLISH VERSION | Office of Justice Programs". www.ojp.gov. Retrieved 2024-07-02.
  99. ^ 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.
  100. ^ "Iceland penal code".
  101. ^ "Criminal Code of the Republic of Panama (approved by Law No. 14 of May 18, 2007, with amendments and additions introduced by Law N° 26 of 2008), Panama, WIPO Lex". www.wipo.int. Retrieved 2024-07-02.
  102. ^ Socorro, Enrique Lagrange (1962). Le Délit préterintentionnel et son application en droit pénal vénézuélien (in French). l'auteur.
  103. ^ "Colombian Penal Code | Office of Justice Programs". www.ojp.gov. Retrieved 2024-07-02.
  104. ^ Abagados, Estudio Durrieu (2021-10-01). The Argentine Penal Code and Other Criminal Economic Articles. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-47954-8.
  105. ^ "https://uruguay.leyderecho.org/preterintencion/". 4 February 2017. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  106. ^ "Penal Code of Brazil (document, Portuguese) | Women's Learning Partnership". learningpartnership.org. Retrieved 2024-07-02.
  107. ^ Kirsten, Tim (2021-08-07). "Peruvian Penal Code". LimaEasy. Retrieved 2024-07-02.
  108. ^ "Ecuadorian penal code".
  109. ^ "Cuban penal code" (PDF).
  110. ^ Cañizares, Enrique Roldán (2019-05-08). Luis Jiménez de Asúa.Derecho penal, República, Exilio (in Spanish). Midac, SL. ISBN 978-84-1324-201-9.
  111. ^ Rippy, J. Fred (1930). "The New Penal Code of Mexico". The Hispanic American Historical Review. 10 (3): 295–298. doi:10.2307/2506376. ISSN 0018-2168. JSTOR 2506376.
  112. ^ "Hungary: Criminal Code". Refworld. Retrieved 2024-07-02.
  113. ^ "Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina".
  114. ^ Atsegbua, Lawrence; Aigbokhaevbo, Violet (2022-10-03). Criminal Law in Nigeria. African Books Collective. ISBN 978-978-59726-2-7.
  115. ^ "The Penal Code of Finland - FINLEX" (PDF).
  116. ^ "Bulgaria: Criminal Code". Refworld. Retrieved 2024-07-02.
  117. ^ "Penal Code - English - Japanese Law Translation". www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp. Retrieved 2024-06-29.
  118. ^ Tshimbawu, Tshitenge (2019-09-17). CODE GAULTHIET (in French). Lulu.com. ISBN 978-0-244-21814-0.
  119. ^ "Penal Code of Morocco (document, French) | Women's Learning Partnership". learningpartnership.org. Retrieved 2024-06-29.
  120. ^ "Code Pénal". droit.mjustice.dz. Retrieved 2024-06-29.
  121. ^ "Penal Code of Tunisia (document, French) | Women's Learning Partnership". learningpartnership.org. Retrieved 2024-06-29.
  122. ^ 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)
  123. ^ "Croatian's penal code" (PDF).
  124. ^ "https://www.juriafrica.com/lex/art-278-code-penal-cameroun-20738.htm". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  125. ^ Juridis Périodique - Numéro : 32 (in French). Presses univresitaires d'Afr.
  126. ^ "Somali penal code" (PDF).
  127. ^ "Penal Code of Andorra". Retrieved 2024-07-02.
  128. ^ "Bolivian Criminal Code | Lions". www.cms.int. Retrieved 2024-07-02.
  129. ^ "Romanian penal code" (PDF).
  130. ^ "Albanian criminal code" (PDF).
  131. ^ "Criminal Law - Syrian Law Journal". Retrieved 2024-07-02.
  132. ^ 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)
  133. ^ Reed, Alan; Bohlander, Michael (2018-10-03). Homicide in Criminal Law: A Research Companion. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-01629-2.
  134. ^ Yenisey, Feridun (2021-07-20). Criminal Law in Turkey. Kluwer Law International B.V. ISBN 978-94-035-3443-5.
  135. ^ Reed, Alan; Bohlander, Michael (2018-10-03). Homicide in Criminal Law: A Research Companion. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-01629-2.
  136. ^ Hoctor, Shannon Vaughn (2017-06-20). Criminal Law in South Africa. Kluwer Law International B.V. ISBN 978-90-411-9490-9.
  137. ^ Langevin, Louise (2008). Rapports sociaux de sexe-genre et droit: repenser le droit (in French). Archives contemporaines. ISBN 978-2-914610-79-7.
  138. ^ "Slovenian penal code" (PDF).
  139. ^ Dubber, Markus D.; Hörnle, Tatjana (2014-11-27). The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-165459-6.
  140. ^ "Portugal criminal code" (PDF).
  141. ^ Horder, Jeremy (2007-12-10). Homicide Law in Comparative Perspective. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84731-385-0.
  142. ^ 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=1232156379"