Opinion Negligence Action vs Strict Liability

When comparing negligence actions and strict liability actions, there are similar actions that can be construed to be one but actually is the other.
Negligence actions have to be proven. The tortfeasor has a fifty-fifty chance of being found not guilty as the evidence has to prove at least 50% that the tortfeasor is guilty. In a strict liability action the victim does not have to prove negligence.
Negligence is defined as the failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid injuring others or the property belonging to others. Four elements can comprise a negligence cause of action: Duty, breach, causation and damages (Intro to Torts, Unit 4). It is our duty to protect someone from harm, when you breach that duty the cause has to be apparent, it was negligent on the part of the tortfeasor.
Strict liability in tort is the concept that in certain situations a defendant is liable for plaintiff's damages without any requirement that the plaintiff prove that the defendant was negligent,(Smith, 2009).
In this case of Strict Products Liability a woman sues a company that manufactures hip replacement devices;
This action was filed originally in the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, on October 17, 2007. The complaint in this case alleges that Plaintiff Sharon Phillips suffered personal injuries as a result of a defective hip replacement device that was surgically implanted in her body in September 2003. Phillips asserts claims for breach of implied warranty, strict products liability, and negligence against Howmedica, the manufacturer of the hip replacement device. Additionally, Phillips asserts a claim in strict products liability against Defendant Anderson Hospital ("Anderson"), where Phillips underwent the operation in which the defective hip replacement device was implanted in her body in September 2003. … The court held that
(1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if(a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and(b) it is expected to reach the user or consumer in the condition in which it is sold.(2) The rule stated in subsection (1) applies although(a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and(b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller, Phillips v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
Since the device was defective there was no defense Howmedica could apply except for statute of limitations which can happen in any tort case including negligence.
In the following case you will see that contributory negligence was abolished and comparative negligence used for a vehicle wreck. The differences in strict liability and negligence torts, is the fact that strict liability means you are totally responsible for the tort. As in the case below that is not true for negligence.
Appellant injured parties separately sought review of the appellate court and trial court's judgments, which dismissed appellants' complaint based on the doctrine of contributory negligence. On appeal, appellants contended that the court should abolish the doctrine of contributory negligence and adopt the doctrine of comparative negligence as the law of Illinois. Both lower court judgments were reversed and remanded. The court abolished the common law doctrine of contributory negligence and adopted in its place the doctrine of comparative negligence in its pure form. The court concluded that it was not fair for injured plaintiffs, because of some negligence on their part, to bear the entire burden of their injuries because contributorily negligence barred recovery by a plaintiff who was negligent. The court concluded that the pure form was the only system that truly apportioned damages according to the relative fault of the parties and, thus, achieved total justice. Further, the court held that contributory negligence was a judicially created doctrine, which could be altered or totally replaced by the court, which created it, Alvis v. Ribar.
In conclusion the difference in a negligence action and a strict liability action, I believe, is most strict liability cases are products or services that the tortfeasor manufacturers or delivers. Negligence is usually and action caused by a tortfeasor. Subsection (2)(a) of § 402A, Restatement (Second) of Torts, indicates that the seller is liable regardless of the degree of care used to safeguard the public from injury by the defective product. Subsection (2)(b) states that privity of contract is unnecessary for strict liability to apply, Buckley, W & Okrent, C (2004). In negligence cases, The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant was negligent. This forces the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that all negligence elements existed (duty, breach, causation, and injury). The evidence must establish that the defendant’s actions were negligent and caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Burden of proof is sometimes referred to as burden of production, Buckley, W & Okrent, C (2004).

References

Buckley, W & Okrent, C (2004). Torts and Personal Injury: Third Edition. Canada: Delmar Learning (p. 49,296,321,331,335,338)
Kaplan University online Unit 4: Negligence. Retrieved January 28, 2009.
Smith, Craig A., 2009 by lawschoolhelp.com. Retrieved February 2, 2009.
Phillips v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92235 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 17, 2007)
Alvis v. Ribar, 85 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 1981)