Re: true or false

Generally true, but there may be some exceptions. This should be reviewed by an attorney proficient with the facts, as no facts were given.

Re: true or false

Only Mr. Slater is correct. The anwer is: true. Under the doctrine of "strict liability," liability is imposed for reasons other than fault, for certain public policy reasons.

For example, individuals who engage in certain so-called "ultrahazardous activities," such as the use of explosive or harboring wild animals, are liable for all injuries proximately caused by the individual's enterprise, even without a showing of negligence and even if utmost care is taken.

According to Prosser on Torts at 495 (4th ed. 1971), the rationale of the tort law of strict liability is that it tends to discourage dangerous activities while not enitrely prohibiting any social benefit they may have.

A relatively recent development in the area of strict liability is consumer product liability.

Hope this helps.

-- Kenneth J. Ashman; www.AshmanLawOffices.com; KAshman@AshmanLawOffices.com

The information provided by Ashman Law Offices, LLC (“ALO”) is for general educational purposes only. No attorney-client relationship is established by this communication and no privilege attaches to such communication. ALO is not taking and will not take any action on your behalf and will not be considered your attorney until both you and ALO have signed a written retention agreement. There are strict deadlines, called statutes of limitation, within which claims or lawsuits must be filed. Therefore, if you desire the services of an attorney and decide not to retain ALO on terms acceptable to ALO, you should immediately seek the services of another attorney.

Re: true or false

Not exactly correct. If an accident occurs under circumstances where strict liability applies, certain elements of proof are no longer required as they would be in other cases (there are many refinements to this concept, so this is merely a general statement). For example, if the law requires a handrail be placed upon a scaffold by the owner of a worksite and a workman falls from the scaffold, the workman does not have to prove that the negligence of the owner caused his accident. He need only prove that the handrail was missing and as a result he was caused to fall.

Re: true or false

True

Re: true or false

I agree with Louis and David.

But I wonder why the questioner is posing the question in this format. Back when I took the NY Bar Exam, we were posed a series of such "objective" questions with options of answering true or false.

Is the questioner studying for the Bar Exam? Or perhaps flunked this question on the Exam and is seeking to locate kindred spirits who would have answered the same way?