Liability for harm without any showing of carelessness - the rule for abnormally dangerous activities, for defective products in most states, and, under many state statutes, for the owner of a dog that bites.
Most injury claims require proof that the defendant was careless. Strict liability is the set of situations in which the law dispenses with that requirement: the defendant is answerable for the harm because of what they did or kept, however carefully they did it. The injured person still has to prove that the activity or thing caused the injury and what the injury is worth; what they do not have to prove is fault.
The classic category is abnormally dangerous activities - blasting, storing explosives, keeping wild animals - where the risk cannot be eliminated by care and the person who chose to create it is made to bear it. The category that matters most in practice is products: in most states the seller of a product that leaves the seller's hands in a defective condition is strictly liable to the user or consumer injured by the defect, so the claim turns on the product rather than on the manufacturer's conduct. Dog bites are the everyday example: many states have replaced the common-law rule, under which an owner was liable only if they knew the animal was dangerous, with a statute making the owner liable for a bite regardless of the dog's history, subject to defences such as provocation or trespass.
Strict liability is not absolute liability. The injured person's own conduct still matters under the state's comparative-fault rules in most jurisdictions, causation must still be proved, and each category has its own defences. Workers' compensation is a different kind of no-fault scheme - a statutory benefit system rather than a tort rule - and is covered under its own entry.
The value of the doctrine is that it changes what has to be proved, and whether a claim falls inside it is a legal question a lawyer answers in the first conversation - a product case argued as negligence when strict liability was available has been made harder than it needed to be. In a dog-bite case the first question is which of the two rules the state follows, because under the common-law rule the animal's history is the whole case.
Choose your state. Each link opens the directory page for the city in that state with the most currently published law firms in this practice area; a +n beside the city is how many other cities in the state also have one. The list is generated when this page loads, so a state whose listings have lapsed drops out rather than becoming a dead link.