Reword the following answer: In a case governed by a rule of strict liability, a defendant may be held liable even if they did not act negligently or with intent to cause harm. Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds a party responsible for their actions or products that cause damage, regardless of any negligence or fault on their part. This concept is often applied in product liability cases, where a manufacturer can be held liable for defective products that cause injury, even if they took all possible precautions during the manufacturing process. The rationale behind strict liability is to ensure that those who are in the best position to prevent harm are incentivized to do so. It is also based on the principle that those who engage in certain activities do so at their own risk and must bear the cost of any harm that results. In a strict liability case, the plaintiff must typically prove the following: 1. The defendant was engaged in a certain activity or produced a certain product. 2. The activity or product caused harm. 3. The plaintiff suffered damages as a result. It's important to note that strict liability does not apply to all legal cases. It is primarily used in tort law, and its application varies by jurisdiction and situation. For example, in some jurisdictions, dog owners are strictly liable for any harm their pets cause, while in others, they are only liable if they knew the dog had a tendency to cause that type of harm