Strict liabilty
<p>In a Civil Law legal system there is a distinction made.</p>
<p>Proper Strict Liability which is plainly Strict Liability as used in the English Language (guiltless liability/ liability regardless of guilt simply because damages occured).</p>
<p>And improper Strict Liability in which guilt is required but the burden of proof is reversed. e.g. The consumer is in a weaker position to prove and bargain so the merchant is usually required to prove that they did nothing wrong (they abode by the law). Which is entirely unproblematic given the relative positions of the parties.</p>
<p>How is Proper Strict Liability in accordance with Necessity, Proportionality and Human Value?</p>
<p>I am not allowed to seek the conformance with law of the general public when trying a specific person (otherwise I would be using them, as a means for the general good) while that person is free of guilt which renders the whole liability unnecessary for them personally (no matter what sanction they expected the damages would occur nonetheless).</p>

<p>Strict liability in tort (for money damages in a lawsuit) is generally imposed when there are good reasons for someone to be responsible notwithstanding a lack of personal fault (and sometimes there are &quot;back door&quot; fault aspects).</p>
<p>Some of the common categories in the U.S. are:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Strict liability of an employer or principal for acts of an employee or agent, or by one general partner for another one, or of an insurer or surety for someone insured or guaranteed.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Strict liability for a defective product. Defectiveness is also a &quot;back door&quot; form of fault, even though it is not evaluated by the usual negligence standard in which there is no liability for mistakes that a reasonable person could make.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Strict liability for harm caused by an ultra-hazardous activity. The inference is that a reasonable person wouldn't engage in ultra-hazardous activities at all.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Strict liability is imposed for breaches of contract.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Generally the common theme is that someone subject to liability consciously assumed a risk of liability in advance of an incident, and often has some control or influence over the events that could conceivably cause harm.</p>
<p>Strict liability is not constitutionally required or prohibited. Whether it is imposed is a matter for non-constitutional legislation and for judicial interpretation of the law.</p>

<p>As I understand it you are asking about the theoretical justification for strict liability in tort - for example the liability of a manufacturer to a consumer for damage and/or personal injury caused by defects in their product.</p>
<p>Generally the justification for this is that:</p>
<p>a.) The defendant is in business - i.e. it is not an imposition on citizens in general: you have to decide to start a business and you know that strict liability will be a consequence.</p>
<p>b.) Either indemnity insurance is compulsory or it is at least usual and readily available - so that it is not actually the defendant who pays but their insurance company</p>

liability civil-law tort legal-concepts civil-legal-system