Which of the following is NOT a legal defense against negligence?

Strict liability is characterized by a legal framework where a party is held responsible for damages or injury caused by their actions or products, regardless of fault or negligence. This means that in strict liability cases, the defendant can be held liable even if they took all possible precautions to prevent harm. Since strict liability does not require a finding of negligence or fault, it does not serve as a defense against negligence claims.

In contrast, contributory negligence, statute of limitations, and comparative negligence are all recognized defenses in negligence cases. Contributory negligence may diminish or eliminate a plaintiff's ability to recover damages if they are found to be at fault to any degree. The statute of limitations sets a time limit on when a lawsuit can be filed, serving as a barrier if the claim is not brought within that time frame. Finally, comparative negligence allows for the apportioning of fault between the parties, enabling the plaintiff to recover damages even if they share some degree of responsibility for the injury.

Thus, identifying strict liability as not being a legal defense against negligence aligns with the understanding that it operates under a different principle of liability, focusing on the nature of the activity or product rather than the behavior of the party involved.