Which liability type suggests the defendant acted without negligence or intent?

The correct answer is strict liability, which is a type of liability that holds a party legally responsible for their actions or products, without the requirement of proving negligence or intent. This means that even if the defendant did not act with carelessness or an intention to cause harm, they can still be held accountable for any damage caused.

Strict liability typically applies in cases that involve inherently dangerous activities or defective products. For example, if a company manufactures a product that is found to be defective and causes injury, the manufacturer can be held strictly liable for the damages, regardless of the precautions they took in making the product. The focus is on the harm caused rather than the state of mind or actions of the defendant.

In contrast, vicarious liability involves a situation where one party is held liable for the actions of another, usually in the context of an employer-employee relationship. Negligent liability requires proof that a party failed to exercise reasonable care, while compensatory liability deals with the obligation to compensate for damages incurred. None of these liability types remove the need to establish some degree of wrongdoing or negligence on the part of the defendant.