How does strict liability differ from negligence?

Strict liability fundamentally differs from negligence in that it does not require the injured party to prove that the defendant acted negligently. In cases of negligence, the claimant must demonstrate that the defendant failed to exercise a reasonable standard of care, which can involve analyzing the defendant's actions, intentions, and circumstances surrounding the incident.

However, strict liability imposes responsibility on the defendant regardless of fault or intent; it is sufficient to show that the defendant engaged in a specific activity that caused harm. This is particularly relevant in cases involving inherently dangerous activities or the handling of hazardous substances, where the mere fact of engaging in the activity that led to the injury can trigger liability, irrespective of any negligence.

Therefore, when addressing strict liability, the emphasis is on the activity and the outcome rather than the behavior or mental state of the defendant, making it unnecessary for the plaintiff to prove negligence for recovery. This clearly delineates the distinction from negligence, where proving a lack of care is essential for a successful claim.