What is the term for liability that does not require proof of negligence?

The term for liability that does not require proof of negligence is known as strict liability. This legal concept holds an individual or entity responsible for their actions or products, regardless of fault or intention. In cases of strict liability, the plaintiff does not have to demonstrate that the defendant was negligent; instead, it is sufficient to show that the harm resulted from the defendant's actions, particularly in areas involving inherently dangerous activities or defective products.

Strict liability is commonly applied in product liability cases, where manufacturers can be held accountable for injuries caused by their defective products, regardless of whether they exercised reasonable care in production. This approach serves to provide greater protection for consumers by ensuring that they can seek compensation without the burden of proving negligence.

The other terms listed are related to different areas of liability but do not fit the definition provided in the question. General liability typically refers to a wide range of potential claims against a business, often involving negligence. Exemplary liability, more commonly known as punitive damages, is awarded as a punishment and not merely for negligence. Conditional liability implies a liability that is contingent on certain conditions being met, and therefore does not apply in this context.