Which term describes liability imposed by a court or statute in the absence of fault when harm results from extremely dangerous, ultra hazardous, or abnormal activities?

• A. Intentional nuisance
• B. Strict liability (absolute liability)
• C. Nuisance per se
• D. General agent

Answer: (B)

Liability without fault arises when a party is responsible for harm caused by an ultra-hazardous or abnormally dangerous activity, regardless of how carefully they behaved. In these situations, the law imposes strict liability: the injured party does not have to prove that the defendant was negligent or intended to cause harm. They only need to show that the activity caused the injury and that damages occurred. This is why the term best describing this scenario is strict liability (also called absolute liability): it holds the responsible party liable purely due to the nature of the activity, not due to fault.

Nuisance and nuisance per se involve interference with someone’s use or enjoyment of property, often requiring some fault or wrongfulness tied to the interference, so they don’t fit the idea of liability without fault for dangerous activities. A general agent pertains to an agent authorized to act on behalf of a principal and isn’t about strict liability concepts.