Absolute (strict) liability differs from ordinary negligence liability because the claimant does not have to prove:
Explanation
Strict or absolute liability attaches to a narrow set of exposures — abnormally dangerous activities such as blasting or keeping wild animals, and defective products — where fault simply is not an issue and carelessness need not be shown. Damages still must be proved, so the answer that removes the damages element is wrong: there is no claim without harm. The claimant also still has to tie the defendant to the activity or to the defective product.
This topic, taught in full in the California Property & Casualty Broker-Agent guide. California Property & Casualty Broker-Agent Study Guide — 2026 Edition — PDF + EPUB, $24.99 · 14-day refund →
Practice all 531 questions free — no signup required.
Own the complete California Property & Casualty Broker-Agent guide — PDF + EPUB, $24.99 →
Related questions on this topic
- States take different approaches to a plaintiff who is partly at fault. Under a comparative negligence approach, the plaintiff's recovery is:
- A spectator sits behind the dugout at an amateur ball game, is struck by a foul ball, and sues the club. The club's strongest defence is that the spectator:
- A driver negligently blocks a traffic lane; twenty minutes later an unrelated drunk driver strikes the stopped car. The drunk driver's conduct is best described as:
- A delivery driver rear-ends a car while making scheduled company deliveries. The employer is held liable for the driver's negligence under the doctrine of:
- A surgical sponge is left inside a patient and is found on a later scan. The patient invokes res ipsa loquitur, which allows a court to:
- A jury awards an injured claimant $300,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. The punitive portion is best described as:
Last reviewed: · editorial process