What is a defense against strict liability for unknowing contributory negligence?

In the context of strict liability, the correct answer focuses on the concept that a plaintiff can always recover damages regardless of their own negligence in certain cases. This principle stems from the nature of strict liability, which does not require proof of negligence; rather, it holds a defendant liable for harm caused by their inherently dangerous activities or defective products, regardless of the level of care they exercised.

Strict liability essentially places the burden on the defendant to avoid harm, and thus, the presence of contributory negligence by the plaintiff does not negate their right to recover damages. The idea is that if the defendant's conduct is sufficiently abominable or hazardous, the plaintiff's own actions, even if negligent, should not bar their recovery.

In contrast, if a plaintiff must prove negligence, cannot recover damages, or is limited to a fixed recovery amount, these options imply a traditional negligence standard where the plaintiff’s conduct directly impacts the ability to recover. However, under strict liability, the emphasis is placed on the nature of the defendant’s conduct rather than the plaintiff's conduct, allowing for recovery even if the plaintiff contributed to the harm unknowingly.