Chapter 71. In this chapter, we look at a category of tort called strict liability, or liabilitywithout fault. Under the doctrine of strict liability, a person who engages incertain activities can be held responsible for any harm that results to others,even if the person used the utmost care.2. We then look at an area of tort law of particular importance to business persons—product liability. The manufacturers and sellers of products may incurproduct liability when product defects cause injury or property damage toconsumers, users, or bystanders.3. Although multimillion-dollar product liability claims often involve bigautomakers, pharmaceutical companies, or tobacco companies, manybusinesses face potential liability. For instance, a number of product liabilitylawsuits have been filed claiming that energy drinks like Monster, Red Bull,and Rockstar have serious adverse effects—especially on young people. Aman who swallowed a bone fragment while eating sued McDonald’s in 2015for allegedly defective chicken McNuggets.4. Product liability lawsuits also reach across international borders. TakataCorporation, a global company that supplies seat belts, airbags, and otherautomobile safety systems, is being sued by hundreds of plaintiffs in theUnited States. Takata manufactured allegedly defective airbags, whichviolently exploded and ejected metal debris, resulting in injuries anddeaths.Footnote Takata has already paid a $70 million penalty to the NationalHighway Safety Administration for failing to promptly disclose defects in itsairbags, millions of which have now been recalled.5. British courts liberally applied the doctrine that emerged from the case. Initially,though, few U.S. courts accepted the doctrine, presumably because the courtswere worried about its effect on the expansion of American business. Today,however, the doctrine of strict liability is the norm rather than the exception.6. Abnormally Dangerous Activities7. Strict liability for damages proximately caused by an abnormally dangerous, orultrahazardous, activity is one application of strict liability. Courts apply thedoctrine of strict liability in these situations because of the extreme risk of theactivity. Abnormally dangerous activities are those that involve a high risk ofserious harm to persons or property that cannot be completely guarded againstby the exercise of reasonable care.8. Activities such as blasting or storing explosives qualify as abnormallydangerous, for instance. Even if blasting with dynamite is performed with allreasonable care, there is still a risk of injury. Considering the potential forharm, it seems reasonable to ask the person engaged in the activity to pay forinjuries caused by that activity. Although there is no fault, there is stillresponsibility because of the dangerous nature of the undertaking.