What must be shown to prove negligence that is not needed to prove strict liability?
A. Injury
B. Fault
C. Stream of commerce
D. Defective product

A. Injury

Explanation:

Given that for strict liability, the defendant is only liable to accidents he or she causes, that is to prove strict liability, the plaintiff must show

cause and damages. Whereas on negligence, it is required of a plaintiff to show duty, breach, cause, and injuries.

Hence, what must be shown to prove negligence that is not needed to prove strict is "Injury" as it covers a lot of factors including both cause and damages of strict liability.

answeraccounts;

two years ago, when picking flowers in the mountains back of yosemite valley, i found a book. it was blotted and storm-beaten; all of its outer pages were mealy and crumbly. the paper seemed to dissolve like the snow beneath which it had been buried, however; many of the inner pages were well preserved. and although all were more or less stained and torn, whole chapters were easily readable. this is the condition of the great open book of yosemite glaciers today; its granite pages have been torn and blurred by the same storms that wasted the castaway book.

two years ago, when picking flowers in the mountains back of yosemite valley; i found a book. it was blotted and storm-beaten, all of its outer pages were mealy and crumbly. the paper seemed to dissolve like the snow beneath which it had been buried, however, many of the inner pages were well preserved. and although all were more or less stained and torn; whole chapters were easily readable. this is the condition of the great open book of yosemite glaciers today, its granite pages have been torn and blurred by the same storms that wasted the castaway book.