How does strict liability differ from negligence?

Strict liability differs from negligence primarily in that it does not require proof of negligence. In cases of negligence, the injured party must demonstrate that the defendant failed to act with reasonable care, leading to the injury. This means that the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant acted unreasonably. On the other hand, strict liability holds a party responsible for damages or injuries without needing to establish negligence or fault. This applies mainly in cases involving inherently dangerous activities or defective products, where the law imposes liability regardless of the defendant's intent or care.

For example, if a company manufactures a defective product that causes injury, the injured party can recover damages even if the company took all possible precautions to ensure the product was safe. This fundamental difference makes option A the correct answer as it highlights that strict liability simplifies the process for the injured party by removing the necessity to prove negligence.

The other options do not accurately represent the nature of strict liability. It does not always involve intentional acts, as strict liability can arise from unintentional actions (like manufacturing defects). Additionally, strict liability systems are designed to provide compensation for injuries resulting from specific activities or products, contrary to what option C suggests. Lastly, strict liability is often considered more stringent than negligence