Final answer:
Intentional torts are deliberate harmful acts, while quasi-intentional torts infer intent from reckless actions. Negligence is a failure to exercise due care, unlike intentional torts that require specific intent to harm. Strict liability imposes responsibility without proof of fault or intent, differing from both negligence and intentional torts.
Step-by-step explanation:
Intentional, Quasi-Intentional Torts versus Negligence and Strict Liability
Intentional torts are wrongful acts done on purpose. They are deliberative actions which cause harm or injury to another person. Examples of intentional torts include assault, battery, and false imprisonment.
Quasi-intentional torts, on the other hand, infer intent from reckless behavior that leads to emotional distress or harm even if there wasn't a specific intent to harm. Examples include defamation and invasion of privacy.
In contrast, negligence occurs when a person fails to act with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The breach of this duty of care must cause harm for negligence to be actionable.
Strict liability, differs from both intentional and negligence torts, as it holds a party liable for damages without the need to prove fault, negligence, or intent. Strict liability often applies to inherently dangerous activities or in cases involving defective products.
These types of responsibilities may come into conflict when, for example, compatibilists who believe in freedom of choice are faced with actions or policies imposing strict liability. The quasi-consequentialist approach suggested by Ross, which weighs out the balance of prima facie rightness against wrongness, can be a method for resolving such conflicts.