What is another term for "strict liability" in legal contexts?

Strict liability refers to a legal doctrine that holds a party responsible for their actions or the actions of their products, regardless of fault or intent. This means that a person can be found liable even if they did not intend to cause harm or did not exercise negligence.

The correct term for strict liability is "liability without fault." This is because the essence of strict liability is that the defendant can be held liable without any proof of negligence or intent to cause harm. It is often applied in cases involving hazardous activities or defective products, where the law imposes responsibility on the parties involved without the need to establish fault or negligence.

The other terms provided do not accurately reflect the nature of strict liability. "Liability with fault" implies that liability arises from negligence or intentional wrongdoing, which is contrary to the strict liability principle. "Negligence proof" suggests a requirement to prove negligence, which is not applicable in strict liability cases. "Intentional liability" indicates that the liability arises from intentional actions, which again does not align with the concept of holding someone liable regardless of fault or intent.