Under which theory might strict liability be applied to a product?

Strict liability in product liability cases is primarily applied under the theory of "reasonably dangerous conditions." This legal doctrine holds manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of products liable for harm caused by their products, regardless of whether there was any negligence involved in their production or sale.

When a product is considered "reasonably dangerous," it means that the product poses a risk of harm that is greater than what an ordinary consumer would expect, considering its use and purpose. This can include defects in design, manufacturing, or inadequate instructions or warnings. For example, if a product has a defect that makes it unreasonably dangerous when used as intended, the manufacturer can be held strictly liable for injuries resulting from that defect, even if the manufacturer exercised all due care in its production.

In contrast, the other theories or statements do not align with how strict liability is applied. For instance, the idea of product defects discovered after use does not precisely reflect strict liability principles, as this could imply an expectation of knowledge or discovery rather than an inherent danger. Additionally, saying that manufacturers must prove negligence is contrary to the concept of strict liability, where the presence of negligence is not a requirement for liability. Finally, the notion that defects must be reported by consumers to trigger strict liability