When liability exists without proving negligence, this is called a. indirect admission of guilt b. restrictive liability c. strict liability d. direct culpability

C. Strict liability

Explanation:

Strict liability is one that does not depend on the demonstration of guilt, ie it cannot claim that the accused has been negligent. In this case liability for an offense may even exist, but the duty to indemnify and claim that a person is guilty of negligence does not depend on the existence of such liability. There may be a duty to indemnify even if the agent who caused the damage was not at fault.

The best way to explain it is by example: Imagine a child who is injured inside a shopping mall park. It will be enough for the guardian to demonstrate the damage (the injury caused), the conduct (ie that the child was under the playground's care) and the nexus (that the injury occurred during that time). From then on, it will not matter whether or not it was blame. This is an example of Strict liability.

was there more to the question like a picture or something? also i mean with no picture i think something that's not likely to be an educational impact would probably be the way the child is raised since it has special health care needs