Which of the following is an example of a situation where strict liability might apply?

Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds a party responsible for their actions or products without the plaintiff needing to prove negligence or fault. This doctrine is commonly applied in cases involving inherently dangerous activities or products that pose a risk to the public. Among the choices provided, handling of hazardous materials aligns well with the concept of strict liability.

In the context of handling hazardous materials, the entities involved are considered strictly liable for any harm that results from their activities, regardless of the precautions they took to prevent such harm. This is because such activities are inherently dangerous, and the law places a heavy burden on those engaging in them to ensure public safety. The rationale behind this application is that the risks associated with hazardous materials are significant enough that those who handle them should bear the responsibility for any resulting injuries or damages.

The other situations presented do not match the strict liability framework as closely. Accidental injury during a sports event typically involves assumptions of risk and consent by participants, and thus does not impose liability in the same way. Building construction with safety precautions indicates that the parties are adhering to safety standards, suggesting that negligence may be at play if something goes wrong. Lastly, while food poisoning from a restaurant meal can sometimes lead to liability, it typically requires proof of negligence or breach