Just adding to Lead Balloon's post a few above, in both criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences of an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of that person.
In tort, it is the imposition of liability on a someone without a finding of fault - the claimant does not have to prove fault but need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible.
The defendant however, can raise a defense of absence of fault.
Strict liability differs to absolute liability..... an actus reus (or physical act of the crime) may be excused from strict liability if due diligence is proved.
Absolute liability, requires only an actus reus or physical act..
Strict liability is also found in criminal law, though it may not always be called that.....it can apply to traffic offences. In a speeding case for example, whether the defendant knew that the speed limit was being exceeded is irrelevant; it only need be proven that the defendant was driving the vehicle in excess of the speed limit.