1. Absolute liability 绝对责任；无过失责任

(1) （侵权法）指根据某些制定法规范，不论当事人是否尽了注意或预防义务，也不论当事人是否有过失，只要事故发生，并造成了损害，当事人就应对之承担责任。它有时也包括在严格责任〔strict liability〕中。(2)（刑法）也可称无罪过责任〔liability without fault〕，指法律许可对某些缺乏犯罪主观方面构成要件的特殊行为或结果追究刑事责任。

Absolute liability is a standard of legal liability found in tort and criminal law of various legal jurisdictions. To be convicted of an ordinary crime, in certain jurisdictions, a person must not only have committed a criminal action but also have had a deliberate intention or guilty mind (mens rea). In a crime of strict or absolute liability, a person could be guilty even if there was no intention to commit a crime. The difference between strict and absolute liability is whether the defence of a “mistake of fact” is available: in a crime of absolute liability, a mistake of fact is not a defence. Strict or absolute liability can also arise from inherently dangerous activities or defective products that are likely to result in a harm to another, regardless of protection taken, such as owning a pet rattle snake; negligence is not required to be proven. 相关例句如下：

例句1

The Inequitable Conduct 'Plague' in U. S. Patent Litigation: is it Over and is the CAFC Moving Away from an Absolute Liability Standard?

美国专利诉讼中充斥的不公平行为是否已经结束以及联邦巡回上诉法院是否正在偏离绝对责任标准？

例句2

In some jurisdictions, statutes impose absolute liability for certain types of damage (e. g. dog bites) without requiring scienter.

在一些法域，法律对某些类型的损害规定了绝对责任(例如狗咬人)，而并不要求明知。

2. Strict Liability 严格责任

侵权法中关于责任标准的一个术语，指一种比没有尽到合理注意义务〔reasonable care〕而承担一般责任更加严格的责任标准，但又非绝对责任〔absolute liability〕。它与绝对责任、无过错责任〔liability without fault〕被认为是广义上的同义词，意为「责任承担与实际过错或损害意图无关」，但「严格责任」在目前为英、美国家最常用之术语，后两个术语曾被常用，今则偶尔用之。

In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant. In the field of torts, prominent examples of strict liability may include product liability, abnormally dangerous activities (e.g., blasting), intrusion onto another's land by livestock, and ownership of wild animals.[1] Traditional criminal offenses that require no element of intent (mens rea) include statutory rape and felony murder. 以下为相关例句，供参考：

例句1

Unless national law provides otherwise, additional categories of strict liability can be found by analogy to other sources of comparable risk of damage.

除非国内法另有规定，可将本规定以类推方式适用于其他同类损害风险，从而增加严格责任种类。

例句2

The US Congress, followed by the EU, could change the rules about orphan works, and in particular about the strict liability that copyright infringement carries.

美国国会，欧盟紧随其后，将修改关于孤儿作品的规定，特别要修改版权侵犯中，所采用的严格责任原则。

例句3

Strict liability for damage caused by animals has survived (with modifications) the general shift to the fault requirement, probably because of the special risks they create.

虽然总体上已经向过错要求转变，动物引起损害的严格责任仍然存在，原因可能在于动物所带来的特殊风险。

相关知识拓展：关于严格责任与绝对责任，学者多认为并无意义上的区别，而只是用词选择不同。严格责任的标准常由制定法规定，无论当事人尽到怎样的注意或采取任何的预防措施，只要损害发生，则其必须承担责任。对严格责任的抗辩非常有限，且不能以尽到合理的注意义务为抗辩理由。在英国，最主要的例子是对动物引起的赔偿责任承担严格责任，在「赖兰兹诉弗莱彻案」〔Rylands v. Fletcher〕中确立的原则是，因危险动物自某人土地上脱逃而致他人损害的，其主人承担严格责任。在美国亦称无过错责任，并被法院应用于产品责任〔product liability〕案件中。在这些案件中，销售商销售有瑕疵的商品并给消费者造成不合理的危险，故其应对此承担严格责任。侵权法规定严格责任是基于这样的前提：制造商向公众提供其产品并进行销售，即说明其产品是符合公众预期使用目的的，故适用严格责任必须证明处于商业流程〔stream of commerce〕中的该产品是有瑕疵的。美国《侵权法第二次重述》〔Restatement, Second, Torts〕第402A条规定：(1)在瑕疵状态下销售任何产品，并对使用者或消费者的人身或财产造成不合理的危险的，销售者应对由此给最终使用者或消费者造成的人身伤害或财产损害承担责任，如果(a)销售者对该产品是商业性销售，且(b)该产品在销售并到达使用者或消费者时不应也没有发生实质性改变。(2)即使(a)销售者在准备或销售该产品时已尽到所有可能的注意义务，和(b)使用者与消费者购买该产品未与销售者订立合同，销售者仍应承担上述第(1)款的责任。

（参照Wikipedia、元照英美法词典）