Associate Safety Professional Practice Exam

In the context of tort law, which of the following is TRUE about strict liability?

1. It requires proof of negligence

2. It applies to non-dangerous products

3. It does not require intent or negligence

4. It is the same as absolute liability

The correct answer is: It does not require intent or negligence

Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds a party responsible for their actions or products, regardless of fault or intent. This concept is particularly relevant in tort law, especially in cases involving inherently dangerous activities or defective products. The essence of strict liability is that the injured party does not need to prove that the defendant was negligent or had any intent to cause harm; the mere fact that a product was defective or an activity was dangerous can be enough to establish liability. In contrast, proving negligence requires the injured party to demonstrate that the defendant failed to meet a certain standard of care, which is not a requirement in strict liability cases. This fundamental difference is central to understanding the application of strict liability in tort law, as it simplifies the process for plaintiffs seeking compensation for injuries caused by defective products or hazardous activities. While absolute liability shares similarities with strict liability, it typically pertains to situations where the defendant faces legal responsibility without any possibility of defense, even if all appropriate precautions were taken. Absolute liability contexts are more limited and often involve specific regulatory frameworks. Therefore, strict liability does not equate to absolute liability. The assertion that strict liability applies to non-dangerous products does not align with its typical application, as strict liability is more frequently associated with dangerous or defective products that