strict liability

"It's strict liability and that is very hard to take when you are completely innocent."

Section 17200 is a strict liability statute that has no such requirement.

When we talk about strict liability, that should have meant no longer allowing any excuses.

In many other common law countries, strict liability for defamation is still the rule.

Strict liability can be determined by looking at the intent of the legislature.

Most likely, a standard of strict liability would attach to speech under this section.

Were this reading of the statute correct, Congress would have created a strict liability crime.

It imposes strict liability on certain areas of nuisance law.

The idea of a "strict liability crime" is an oxymoron.

This is similar to the modern concept of strict liability in tort.

Strict liability means that it is illegal to do something, regardless of one's mental state.

At the heart of these cases is the legal concept of strict liability.

It goes without saying that a strict liability scheme can to a great extent contribute to this.

Strict liability has become a basis on which a victim can sue a producer.

In many states, statutory rape is considered a strict liability offense.

Strict liability thus requires manufacturers to evaluate the full costs of their products.

Where vaccination took place on the recommendation of the government, strict liability was proposed.

However, the willingness of these professionals to accept strict liability varies.

Intention is a problem in crimes of strict liability.

There are two approaches: with fault and strict liability.

The imposition of strict liability may operate very unfairly in individual cases.

Being a strict liability statute, the defendant's taking reasonable care is irrelevant.

Critics charge that strict liability creates risk of moral hazard.

However, this situation can arise in strict liability situations.

The relevant contracting party assumes absolute or strict liability for performance.