When liability exists without proving negligence, this is called a. indirect admission of guilt b. restrictive liability c. strict liability d. direct culpability

C. Strict liability

Explanation:

Strict liability is one that does not depend on the demonstration of guilt, ie it cannot claim that the accused has been negligent. In this case liability for an offense may even exist, but the duty to indemnify and claim that a person is guilty of negligence does not depend on the existence of such liability. There may be a duty to indemnify even if the agent who caused the damage was not at fault.

The best way to explain it is by example: Imagine a child who is injured inside a shopping mall park. It will be enough for the guardian to demonstrate the damage (the injury caused), the conduct (ie that the child was under the playground's care) and the nexus (that the injury occurred during that time). From then on, it will not matter whether or not it was blame. This is an example of Strict liability.

the answer for your question is b.

with the development of the times, more and more chemical reagents or drugs (such as ox bile/bile extract powder (ox bile desiccated), dried or desiccated which contains ox bile acids. this powder is specifically been developed for pharmaceutical industry. for more information: ) for the pharmaceutical industry use, its supervision can not be ignored.