Strict liability
Following tort law, strict liability applies if a defendant is liable for committing an action regardless of the defendant’s intention and mental challenges by the time of committing the crime. As used in criminal law, it applies to minor offenses. As compared to other approaches, strict liability is fair in handling criminal offenses in the United States (Goldberg, John, and Benjamin 743). As per the criminal law, the application of strict liability does not need evidence as a criminal is convicted with the evidence in hands. For example, a criminal convicted of having drugs does not necessarily need to determine the criminal’s intention or mental status. The fairness of strict liability is evidenced as it is easier to prove the defendant’s crime (Goold, Patrick 305). Once a criminal is convicted for a particular crime, the application of strict liability implies that the evidence is ready in the criminal’s hands. This indicates that corruption is presented in court; by applying strict liability, there is less to prove in court; hence it becomes cheaper to handle the case.
The idea of applying strict liability in cases of product liability cases implies that compensation from the manufacturer of the product is guaranteed to the person injured by the dangerous work. Following the tort law, the idea is fair. The injury occurs when the person is on duty. The manufacturer of the product usually receives profit from the work activities, and therefore, the manufacturer should bear the cost of injury. In this case, the cost of damage serves as an operating expense, and therefore it is worth the person injured by the product.