What is not a defense in strict liability cases?

In strict liability cases, the focus is on the inherent nature of the activity or product that causes harm, regardless of the level of care exercised by the defendant. As such, defenses that rely on the plaintiff's conduct, like contributory negligence or assumption of risk, do not apply.

Contributory negligence is not a valid defense in strict liability because it does not pertain to the defendant's responsibility for the inherently dangerous nature of their actions or products. If a defendant is engaged in a strict liability activity, they are liable for any resulting damages, irrespective of how careful they may have been or how the plaintiff may have contributed to the situation.

In contrast, defenses such as assumption of risk can sometimes apply in strict liability cases, as they pertain to the plaintiff's voluntary acceptance of known risks involved in an activity. Misrepresentation and negligence are also not defenses to strict liability, as they relate to fault-based liability rather than the strict liability standard, which does not require proof of negligence or intent. Thus, contributory negligence, as a measure of the plaintiff's fault, does not alleviate the strict liability imposed on the defendant for the harm caused.