The concept of strict liability in tort(a/k/a liability without fault) isdifferent from fault based tort liability.One example of a strict liability tortis a dog bite since an owner is automatically liable to someone who has been bitten by their (the owner's) dog.Another example is holding an employer liable to a third party for the negligence of an employee if committed within the scope of employment (e.g., employer liable to customer if employee left garden hose laying across walk area and customer fell over the hose, etc.).

If you use dynamite, you are automatically liable if someone gets hurt as a result of the explosions you create.What is the primary societal objective being advanced by strict liability laws?In other words, why do we, as a society, impose a strict liability on people who engage in certain activities?(Hint:Is there some sort of societal trade off?)