Strict liability imposes liability on a person or organization even if they did not intend to cause harm or were not negligent. This principle is often applied in cases involving abnormally dangerous activities or products.

Abnormally dangerous activities are those that pose a high risk of harm to others, even when reasonable care is taken. Operating a nuclear power plant is considered an abnormally dangerous activity due to the potential for catastrophic consequences in the event of an accident.

Strict liability serves two main purposes: to deter people from engaging in dangerous activities and to compensate victims for damages caused by such activities.

In a strict liability case, the plaintiff does not need to prove that the defendant intended to cause harm or was negligent. They only need to prove that the defendant's actions caused their damages.

In a strict liability case, a defendant can raise various defenses, including assumption of risk, contributory negligence, and act of God. Assumption of risk occurs when the plaintiff voluntarily exposes themselves to a known risk. Contributory negligence occurs when the plaintiff's own negligence contributes to their injuries. An act of God is an event that is outside of human control, such as a natural disaster.

Products that are inherently dangerous or defective may be subject to strict liability. A lawnmower is an example of a product that could potentially cause serious injuries if it is defective.

The main difference between strict liability and negligence is that strict liability imposes liability regardless of whether the defendant intended to cause harm or was negligent, while negligence requires proof that the defendant breached a duty of care and that this breach caused the plaintiff's injuries.

Strict liability can be applied to animals, but only if they are wild. This is because wild animals are considered to be inherently dangerous.

The main difference between strict liability and absolute liability is that strict liability requires proof that the defendant's actions caused the plaintiff's damages, while absolute liability does not. In other words, absolute liability imposes liability even if the defendant did not intend to cause harm or was not negligent.

Absolute liability offenses are those for which liability is imposed regardless of intent or negligence. Operating a nuclear power plant is an example of an absolute liability offense because of the potential for catastrophic consequences in the event of an accident.

Absolute liability serves two main purposes: to deter people from engaging in dangerous activities and to compensate victims for damages caused by such activities.

In an absolute liability case, the plaintiff only needs to prove that the defendant's actions caused their damages. They do not need to prove that the defendant intended to cause harm or was negligent.

In an absolute liability case, the defendant cannot raise any defenses. This is because liability is imposed regardless of intent, negligence, or any other factors.

Products that are inherently dangerous or defective may be subject to absolute liability. A bottle of water that is contaminated with bacteria could potentially cause serious injuries or even death, making it a product that could be subject to absolute liability.

The main difference between strict liability and product liability is that strict liability applies to all products, regardless of whether they are defective, while product liability applies only to defective products.