It has the beneficial effect of simplifying and thereby expediting court decisions in these cases, although the application of strict liability may seem unfair or harsh, as in Re Polemis.
[9] Under the English law of negligence and nuisance, even where tortious liability is strict, the defendant may sometimes be liable only for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his act or omission.
If the owner of a zoo keeps lions and tigers, he is liable if the big cats escape and cause damage or injury.
[11] In strict liability situations, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defense of absence of fault, especially in cases of product liability, where the defense may argue that the defect was the result of the plaintiff's actions and not of the product, that is, no inference of defect should be drawn solely because an accident occurs.
[17][20] A form of strict liability has been supported in law in the Netherlands since the early 1990s for bicycle-motor vehicle collisions.
[21] Even if a cyclist made an error, as long as the collision was still unintentional, the motorist's insurance must still pay half of the damages.
[22][23] With a concurrent increase in the cost of liability insurance per airplane rising from $50 in 1962 to $100,000 in 1988, and many underwriters had begun to refuse all new policies.
[27] Strict liability laws can also prevent defendants from raising diminished mental capacity defenses, since intent does not need to be proven.