Which of the following is true about strict liability?

The concept of strict liability is essential in tort law, particularly regarding defective products. When dealing with strict liability, a party can be held liable for damages without the need to prove negligence or intent. This legal framework primarily applies to cases involving defective products, where the manufacturer or seller may be held liable if the product is found to be unreasonably dangerous or harmful to consumers, regardless of the precautions they took in manufacturing or selling the product.

In the context of defective products, the rationale behind strict liability is to ensure higher safety standards and protect consumers. If a product malfunctions or causes harm, consumers should be able to seek restitution without needing to demonstrate that the producer acted negligently. This promotes accountability among manufacturers and encourages them to maintain high safety standards in their products.

The other options do not accurately reflect the principles of strict liability: limiting liability to intentional acts does not encompass the broader implications of strict liability, while asserting that liability does not exist in hazardous commerce contradicts established legal principles that recognize those risks. Lastly, while some contracts may attempt to limit liability under specific circumstances, strict liability for defective products generally cannot be waived, reinforcing consumer protection and public safety.