Which statement about strict liability is NOT true?

Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds a party responsible for their actions or products without the claimant needing to prove negligence or fault. This concept can be correctly associated with several instances, including product liability cases and situations involving inherently dangerous activities.

The correct statement regarding strict liability relates to the imposition on defendants engaged in hazardous activities. While it is true that strict liability applies in many instances, the statement in question here is misleading. Strict liability generally does apply to activities that are inherently dangerous; therefore, it is indeed true, not false.

In contrast, strict liability does necessitate that claimants must prove a defect in a product to link it to their injury in product liability cases, hence the option about the need for proof is indeed a true representation of the doctrine. Strict liability is distinct in that it does not require proving intent or negligence, further emphasizing its unique application in both product liability and hazardous activities.