Under the circumstances of strict liability, who must prove innocence?

Under strict liability, the defendant is the party responsible for proving their innocence or a lack of fault in a situation where harm has occurred. This imposes a legal obligation on the defendant to demonstrate that they did not engage in any negligent or wrongful conduct that caused the plaintiff's injury, despite the traditional burden of proof typically lying with the plaintiff in negligence cases.

In strict liability scenarios, such as in torts involving inherently dangerous activities or defective products, the law holds the defendant liable regardless of fault. Therefore, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish that they are not liable due to certain defenses—such as assumption of risk or that the plaintiff was at fault themselves. This concept underscores the nature of strict liability, which is designed to promote accountability among those engaging in specific risky behaviors or manufacturing goods that could potentially harm others.

In these cases, the plaintiff does not need to prove negligence; they only need to demonstrate that the injury occurred as a direct result of the defendant's actions or product. Thus, the responsibility for proof lies with the defendant.