It happens quite often that an even

It happens quite often that an event causes damage and there is no obvious person to whose faulty behavior the damage can be attributed. Then the principle that everyone has to bear his own damage plays a central role. However, there are a number of cases in which there is reason to shift the damages to someone other than the victim who suffered it in the first place. They have in common that the person who becomes liable is somehow responsible for, or profits from, the fact that there is a possibility of faultless damages. Typical examples of strict liability concern damage brought about by animals and by objects that are dangerous by nature, or because they are defective.
Arguments for Strict Liability Whereas fault liability relates to the obligation to pay damages for wrongful behavior on the side of the tortfeasor, this link between liability and fault is cut through in the case of strict liability. As for the basic decision on either fault or strict liability, it is necessary to first establish the criteria on which the choice is to be determined. When we are dealing with the liability for defective products, for example, there are arguments in favor of strict liability. These arguments are that strict liability may offer
– more protection for the injured party (consumer protection),
– an incentive for improving safety,
– better options for insurance,
– fewer problems in determining liability, which saves in procedural costs.
Consequently, when dealing with product liability in the context of industrial production, arguments in favor of strict liability outweigh the arguments underpinning the adage “no liability without fault.”
By keeping an animal, the keeper creates the risk that this animal will cause damage. Then there is reason to hold the keeper of this animal liable when the actual damage was caused even if he did not do anything wrong. Similarly, the owner of a car creates the risk that the car will cause damage, even if the owner is not driving, and is not at fault in a particular case. Cars make society more dangerous, and this is reason to hold car owners liable, because they profit from these danger-creating objects.
In the remainder of this section, we will sketch the development of strict liability in the light of progressive industrialization.

Results (English) 3:

它经常发生，一个事件会造成损害，没有明显的人，其有缺陷的行为的损害可以归因。然后，每个人都必须承担自己的损害的原则，起着核心作用。然而，有一些情况下，我们有理由将损害其他人比谁遭受它在fi第一位受害者。他们的共同点的人，就有可能是某种责任，或亲fiTS，事实上有可能无损害。严格责任的典型例子是动物和物体所带来的危害，这些物体是危险的，或是因为它们有缺陷。支持严格责任而过错责任涉及赔偿对侵权人的不法行为方面的义务，这种责任和过错之间的联系被切断，通过严格责任的案例。至于任何故障或严格责任的基本决策，有必要fiRST建立标准的选择是确定的。当我们在处理有缺陷产品的责任时，例如，有赞成严格责任的论点。这些论点是严格责任可以提供对受伤方（消费者保护）的更多保护，改善安全的激励，更好的保险选择，在确定责任的问题上更少的问题，从而节省了程序成本。因此，当处理在工业生产方面的产品责任，在严格责任的争论大于论证的基础，俗话说“没有无过错责任。”通过饲养一只动物，饲养者创造了这种动物将造成损害的风险。然后有理由持有该动物的保管人的责任时，实际造成的损害，即使他没有做任何错误的。同样，一辆车的车主造成的风险，该车将造成损害，即使车主不是驾驶，并不是在一个特定的情况下的故障。汽车使社会更加危险，这是理性把握的车主承担责任，因为他们的亲fiT从这些危险的创建对象。在本节的其余部分，我们将勾画出严格责任的发展，在渐进的工业化。