All of the following describe strict liability EXCEPT?

Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds a party responsible for their actions or products without the need for proving negligence or fault. This fundamentally distinguishes strict liability cases from those based on negligence, where proof of the defendant's failure to exercise reasonable care is required.

The assertion that strict liability requires proof of negligence is incorrect. In strict liability cases, the focus is on the activity itself—often engaged in inherently hazardous activities or related to defective products—rather than the conduct of the defendant. Therefore, the correct understanding is that once a plaintiff demonstrates that the conditions for strict liability are met, such as the nature of the activity or the defect in a product, the defendant is liable regardless of their intent or care taken to prevent harm.

While strict liability can apply broadly, it is not imposed on all defendants uniformly. It typically pertains to specific contexts, particularly related to dangerous activities or defective products, which further clarifies why it does not encompass every possible situation or defendant. The balancing of these legal principles leads to a nuanced understanding of how liability functions in different scenarios.