If we conceived similarly of strict liability in tort, we would then understand fault liability, incorrectly, as liability that is defeasible by excuses that establish the absence of culpability, in other words, as liability (only) for one's culpable conduct.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tort-theories/
And they misunderstand the nature of strict liability in tort because their inclination is to model it on the notion of strict liability in the criminal law, with which many theorists and laypersons alike are more familiar. Strict liability in the criminal law is a form of responsibility without culpability.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tort-theories/
Strict liability laws were created in the 19th century to improve working and safety standards in factories. Needing to prove mens reas on the part of the factory owners was very difficult and resulted in very few prosecutions. The creation of strict liability offenses meant that convictions were increased.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_%28criminal%29
The strict product liability rule came to replace standard negligence rules in most states because it became clear that plaintiffs, who were injured by defective products through no fault of their own, often could not win their cases.
http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/strict-product-liability-laws.html
Practice Areas. Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Clarifies Pennsylvania’s Strict Liability Standard. In Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., -- A.3d --, 2014 WL 6474923 (Pa. Nov. 19, 2014), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania discussed the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s products liability law and, overturning prior precedent, clarified the law.
http://www.whiteandwilliams.com/resources-alerts-Pennsylvanias-Supreme-Court-Clarifies-Pennsylvanias-Strict-Liability-Standard.html
Strict liability. In law, strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his/her acts and omissions regardless of culpability (including fault in criminal law terms, typically the presence of mens rea).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability
In a strict liability case, the plaintiff must show that: 1  a product was sold in an unreasonably dangerous condition. 2  the seller expected and intended that the product would reach the consumer without changes to the product, and. 3  the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s property was injured by the defective product.
http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/strict-product-liability-laws.html
Strict liability (criminal) In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea (Latin for guilty mind) does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (Latin for guilty act) although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_%28criminal%29
In a nutshell, strict product liability is a legal rule that says a seller, distributor or manufacturer of a defective product is liable to a person injured by that product regardless of whether the defendant did everything possible to make sure the defect never happened.
http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/strict-product-liability-laws.html
Unlike a criminal case, which is initiated and managed by the state, a tort suit is prosecuted by the victim or the victim's estate (or survivors). Moreover, a successful tort suit results in a judgment of liability, rather than a sentence of punishment.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tort-theories/
strict liability standard
Strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context.