Strict Liability: a legal risk that cannot be ignored

In today’s business environment—marked by complex contracts, outsourced production chains, and high reputational exposure—understanding the fundamentals of Strict Liability has evolved from a legal concern into a strategic necessity.

This type of liability does not require proof of fault and may result in compensation obligations even if the company acted without intent or negligence. In other words, if there is damage and a causal link with a high-risk activity performed by the company, the duty to compensate is established.

WHAT IS STRICT LIABILITY?

Strict Liability is a legal obligation that imposes the duty to compensate for damages even when there is no proven fault. That is: if a company engages in activities that are inherently risky—such as civil construction, electricity supply, cargo transportation, or handling of chemical products—it may be held liable for any damage caused to third parties, even if all regulations and procedures were followed.

This concept is provided for in Article 927, sole paragraph, of the Brazilian Civil Code. It is based on the understanding that those who take on the risk also take on the responsibility for potential harm.

In practice, this means a company can be sentenced to pay compensation for an accident or loss—even if it “did everything right” and committed no direct fault.

This legal approach is designed to protect the rights of those affected by potentially dangerous activities, placing on the economic agent the duty to prevent, manage, and repair the impacts caused.

WHY SHOULD YOUR COMPANY BE CONCERNED?

Strict Liability completely changes the legal landscape for companies operating in sensitive sectors. It’s not just about who was at fault or who failed to follow a protocol: the mere connection between the risky activity and the damage caused can be enough to result in a conviction, regardless of intent.

This makes it essential for companies to adopt a strategic prevention mindset—keeping a current risk map, structuring well-drafted contracts, conducting regular audits on suppliers, and, above all, responding quickly and effectively when incidents occur.

The Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ) has reinforced this interpretation in multiple rulings. The logic is clear: whoever profits from a risky activity must also take responsibility for its side effects—even if they are indirect.

RISKS INVOLVING THIRD PARTIES: EVEN MORE COMPLEX

The chain of liability in risky activities is broader than many assume. When a company outsources part of its operations, it does not transfer the legal responsibility—only the service itself.

That’s why damages caused by contractors to third parties (on behalf of your operation) may lead to direct and joint liability, as established by Precedent 331 of the TST and several STJ decisions.

Preventing and mitigating this type of exposure requires not only sound contractual practices but also technical and ongoing management of events involving third parties—especially in cases of accidents, physical injuries, or material losses.

HOW TO PROTECT YOUR COMPANY EFFECTIVELY?

Risk management under Strict Liability requires preventive measures and a solid technical response structure. Key protection mechanisms include:

● Well-drafted contracts with liability clauses and supplier audit provisions;

● Active claims management with technical support for damage analysis and negotiation handling;

● Appropriate insurance coverage, such as General Liability, Professional Liability, Operational and Environmental Liability;

● Ongoing monitoring and compliance to ensure suppliers adhere to legal and operational standards;

● Engagement of TPAs (Third Party Administrators), specialized companies that provide technical and impartial claims management—can be a game-changer in these scenarios. They bring neutrality, speed, and a humanized approach to conflict resolution—an issue we explored in greater depth in an article published earlier this week here on the blog.

A LEGAL DUTY AND A SMART CHOICE

Assumir que a empresa “não teve culpa” pode não ser suficiente para afastar sua obrigação de indenizar. Em muitos casos, o risco é parte do modelo de negócio — e por isso a responsabilidade se torna automática.

Ignorar esse cenário é abrir caminho para prejuízos financeiros, crises reputacionais e judicializações longas. Em contrapartida, empresas que conhecem e se preparam para a Responsabilidade Civil Objetiva conseguem mitigar danos, proteger suas marcas e preservar relacionamentos.

Sources:

Brazilian Civil Code – Law No. 10,406/2002, Art. 927

Superior Court of Justice – Jurisprudence on Strict Liability

Superior Labor Court – Summary 331

CNseg – National Confederation of Insurers

SUSEP Annual Report 2023

Deloitte – "2022 Insurance Claims Outsourcing Report"

KPMG – "Insurance Industry Insights 2023"