Question

Which of the following is not a defence to strict liability?

• A. Act of God
• B. Consent of the plaintiff
• C. Act of a third party
• D. Reasonable care taken by defendant

Hint:

In strict liability cases, the defendant is held responsible for the harm caused regardless of fault. The defences include the "Act of God" and "Consent of the plaintiff", but the "Act of a third party" is not always a valid defence.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understand the concept of strict liability. 
Strict liability is a legal doctrine where a party is held responsible for their actions, regardless of whether they were negligent or intended to cause harm. This means that in cases of strict liability, the defendant is held liable for damages even if they exercised reasonable care. 
Step 2: Defences to strict liability.
The common defences to strict liability include:
Act of God: This is a defence where the harm was caused by a natural event beyond human control, such as a flood or earthquake, which could not have been foreseen or prevented.
Consent of the plaintiff: If the plaintiff has consented to the activity that led to the harm, the defendant may not be held liable under strict liability.
Reasonable care taken by defendant: Strict liability does not consider whether the defendant exercised reasonable care. This is a defence in negligence, but not in strict liability. 
Step 3: Act of a third party as a defence. 
Act of a third party can be a valid defence in strict liability cases, particularly if the third party’s actions were the direct cause of the harm. This means that if a third party’s actions, beyond the defendant’s control, caused the damage, the defendant may not be held liable. 
Step 4: Conclusion. 
Therefore, the correct answer is (3) Act of a third party. Unlike the other defences listed, the act of a third party is not automatically considered a valid defence to strict liability.