This article provides a critical  analysis of the main claims of the Austrian school of law and economics on tort liability. It reviews the normative claims of the Austrian school. It identifies the requirements the Austrian achool articultes towards law and which can be described in five points. According to them positive law should be (i) abstract, (ii) simple, (iii) predictable, (iv) should change incrementally, and (v) should reflect the basic informal rules, social expectations. They maintain that in the case of tort liability, a prima facie strict liability would meet these requiremes much better than the negligence rule. The article contests this claim and argues that it is not clear that the strict liability would be more predictable or better suited to informal social rules.