Final answer:
Strict liability applies to inherently dangerous activities where negligence need not be shown, just that the harm was the direct result of the activity. In the medical field, liability issues emerge regarding faulty equipment or protocols. The First Amendment protects religious exercise, yet activities that harm society can be limited.
Step-by-step explanation:
Activities that give rise to strict liability are usually those activities that are inherently dangerous and do not require a showing of negligence for a party to be held liable. This can include activities such as using explosives, keeping wild animals, or engaging in ultra-hazardous activities. To establish strict liability, one must generally show that the activity being carried out is inherently dangerous, the harm resulted directly from the activity, and the activity was the proximate cause of the injury.
When it comes to the medical field, discussions often arise concerning whether hospitals or health-care workers should be held strictly liable for following a flawed procedure. Manufacturers, on the other hand, can face strict liability if their medical equipment fails or is found defective, even if it was supposed to save lives. The government has a role in regulating medical equipment and protocols to ensure they are safe for use and are maintained properly to prevent failure or harm.
In religious exercise cases concerning the First Amendment, the Court often examines what constitutes the "exercise" of religion and which activities should be protected. The activities that are potentially harmful to society or other individuals may be regulated or restricted even if they are done in the name of religious exercise.