Does strict liability make sense? What are the justifications for the doctrine, and do they make sense? Is it equitable? Can you think of a situation where strict liability might apply?

Strict liability is sometimes referred to as "liability without fault" or "liability irrespective of fault." These descriptions of the doctrine make it clear that in the limited situations where strict liability applies, it does not matter how careful the defendant was: if the defendant's activity caused harm to the plaintiff, then the defendant is responsible for the damages suffered by the plaintiff. Compare that with negligence, where a defendant is only liable for damages his/her actions cause if the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care. And think of intentional torts, where a defendant is only liable if he/she intended to cause harm.