Final answer:
Strict products liability does not require proof of negligence or fault, unlike a negligence cause of action. Liability arises from the condition of the product itself when the manufacturer knew of the defect and proceeded with production
Step-by-step explanation:
A strict products liability claim for personal injury or property damage is not governed by the same rules as a negligence cause of action. Strict liability concerns a scenario where the manufacturer can be held liable without the plaintiff having to prove negligence or fault. A classic case is when a manufacturer continues to produce and sell a product despite knowing it has a defect that could cause harm. For example, if an automobile company knows one of its models has a brake system defect likely to cause failure and subsequent injuries, but sells it anyway, that manufacturer can be held liable under strict products liability when those injuries occur.
On the other hand, negligence requires proving that the manufacturer owed a duty to the consumer, breached that duty, and caused damages as a result. The focus is on the conduct of the defendant rather than the condition of the product.
In both scenarios, questions of liability are central, such as whether manufacturers should be held liable for following flawed procedures or when lifesaving equipment fails. Moreover, the government's role in ensuring safety standards and consumer protection is also pivotal.