The distinction between strict and absolute liability can be seen by examining the issue of causation.For strict liability offenses no evidence of intent or any other mens rea is required. It is however normal for the prosecution to be required to prove causation. For example, in speeding it is necessary to prove the defendant was "driving", but not that he intended to drive faster than permitted, or even that he knew he was doing so.Just like strict liability, absolute liability offences do not require evidence of intent or mens rea. As for causation, the prosecution only has to prove that the proscribed event occurred or situation existed, then the defendant will be liable because of his status.So, in the EMPRESS CAR CASE the company was liable for the pollution of the river even though the diesel tap was turned on by an unknown stranger
Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. It can be distinguished from contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in the tort theory of enterprise liability because, unlike contributory infringement, knowledge is not an element of vicarious liability
Current Liability
Liability has credit balance as normal balance so credit increases the liability which means addition to current liability will increase the overall liability and reduction in liability will reduce overall liability.
When liability is payable within one fiscal year then it is current liability while one liability is payable within more than one period then Is non-current liability.
Strict liability is a form of civil liability, similar to negligence. The main difference between strict liability and tortious liability is that you can be held liable for any harm resulting from certain activities without any fault, simply because the activity falls within the classification of strict liability. Most states have adopted strict liability in some form, and activities that qualify fall into two general categories.
Strict liability makes a person responsible for the damage and loss caused by his/her acts and omissions regardless of culpability (or fault in criminal law terms, which would normally be expressed through a mens rea requirement; see Strict liability (criminal)). Strict liability is important in torts (especially product liability), corporations law, and criminal law. For analysis of the pros and cons of strict liability as applied to product liability, the most important strict liability regime,
In strict liability, there are certain defenses available whereas in absolute liability, there are none.
Yes
Yes it is
Strict liability is the liability to punitive sanction despite the lack of mens rea.
idfk
Warning labels can help protect manufacturers from strict liability by providing consumers with information about potential risks associated with using the product. However, the effectiveness of warning labels in a strict liability case will depend on factors such as the adequacy of the warning provided and whether the consumer was adequately informed of the risks. In some cases, even with warning labels, manufacturers may still be held liable if the warnings were found to be inadequate or insufficient.
James B. Sales has written: 'Product liability law in Texas' -- subject(s): Products liability 'The law of strict tort liability in Texas' -- subject(s): Strict liability
could it be wild animals
The laws in the Philippines about product liability is strict and has liabilities that can be both criminal and civil.
1. Intentional Torts 2. Negligence 3. Strict Liability