Originally, when there was any injury arising out of any wrongful act, one must be found to be liable. This was a principle of theory of civil responsibility. Later, mental elements were brought for a consideration of one’s Liability by deeming that on must be liable only when he committed any act intentionally or negligently. Not until the 19th and 20th centuries when the world was more progressive as a result of technological development and, especially, industrial revolution in Europe, the idea of “let the accident losses lie where they fall’ maxim was not suitable or was not deemed to be just anymore especially when it was possible to find one who should be responsible. Again, the theory of civil responsibility has returned. The theory of civil responsibility lays down its rule by presuming that one may be liable though he has not committed any act intentionally or negligently. Such a liability is called “strict liability”. It is strict in a sense that it requires no mental elements of a wrongdoer. However, it is not absolutely strict because a defendant may rebut this legal presumption. A theory of strict liability is based on both economic and social reasons. Yet if we judge this theory from a legal point of view, we can raise several arguments because according to this theory, one is compelled to pay compensation for any injury, though he does not commit any thing or acts without his intention or negligence. Since the 20th century, laws of various countries have begun to acknowledge and recognize a principle of strict liability as seen from the fact that several certain statutes have been enacted to impose strict liability in addition to already enacted traditional laws of torts, i.e. workmen’s compensation act, laws on injury caused by aircraft, noise, falling things, any conveyance propelled by mechanism, or dangerous things. Such laws are good examples indicating tendency in the area of law of torts which gradually tends to place much emphasis on strict liability.
