Some activities carry liability even when careful. Strict liability is legal responsibility for harm that does not require proof of intent or negligence; the plaintiff need only show that the defendant committed the regulated act and caused the harm.

Classic applications include abnormally dangerous activities, certain animal injuries, and many product-defect claims. Regulatory offenses sometimes impose strict liability for public-welfare reasons. Defenses are limited compared with negligence cases, though causation and other elements still matter.

Strict liability shifts the cost of inevitable harm to those who undertake the activity and can better spread or insure against it. Critics argue it can over-deter useful conduct; supporters emphasize victim compensation and safety incentives. Statutes and case law define its precise scope in each area.

• Liability without proof of fault or intent
• Applied to dangerous activities and some products
• Still requires causation and covered harm
• Limited traditional negligence defenses