QuestionApr 1, 2021 - 15:02
Report This Post
In the Civil Law legal system, there is a distinction provided. Proper Strict Liability and improper strict Liability in which guilt is required but the burden of proof is reversed. For instance, the consumer is in a weaker position to prove and bargain so the merchant is usually required to prove that they did nothing wrong. Which is entirely unproblematic given the relative positions of the parties. How is Proper Strict Liability in accordance with Necessity, Proportionality, and Human Value?
Answer This Post
Login into your account and answer this post