Law Society of Ontario (LSO) Paralegal Practice Exam 2025 – 400 Free Practice Questions to Pass the Exam

Strict liability implies that the defendant is considered prima facie liable for harm caused, regardless of intent or negligence. Under this legal doctrine, the plaintiff does not need to prove that the defendant acted with negligence or intent to cause harm; rather, they only need to establish that the defendant was involved in certain regulated activities that resulted in harm.

This principle is often applied in cases involving inherently dangerous activities or the manufacture and sale of products. For instance, if a manufacturer produces a defective product that causes injury, the manufacturer can be held strictly liable, meaning they are responsible for the damage incurred, even if they took all reasonable precautions to ensure the product was safe.

In contrast, the other options do not accurately reflect the concept of strict liability. For instance, asserting that the defendant is not liable for any harm caused undermines the foundational principle of strict liability. Additionally, claiming that liability is determined solely by the victim's actions misrepresents the focus of strict liability, which centers on the defendant's involvement in the activity that led to the harm, independent of the victim's behavior. Lastly, stating that the defendant has the right to a trial by jury does not pertain to the nature of strict liability; it relates to procedural rights rather than liability itself.