In the context of strict liability, what must a plaintiff prove?

In the context of strict liability, the correct answer revolves around the requirement that a plaintiff must demonstrate the product was unreasonably dangerous. Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds a party responsible for their actions or products, regardless of fault, negligence, or intent. In product liability cases, this means that if a product is deemed unreasonably dangerous and causes harm, the manufacturer or seller can be held liable without the need to prove that they acted negligently or intended to cause harm.

To establish a case under strict liability, the plaintiff must show that the product had defects that made it unsafe or unreasonably dangerous to consumers, which directly contributed to the injury or damage incurred. This is different from negligence claims, where a plaintiff would need to prove the defendant's failure to meet a standard of care, or intent, which is not a factor in strict liability cases. Thus, proving that the product was unreasonably dangerous is sufficient for establishing liability under this doctrine.