Thus there has been created an entire body of law of rectification and unjust enrichment. Existence of this comes when men cannot through some reason pattern their actions after law, but to preserve integrity of a system of legal relations set by advertence there is need for supplementary system of rules for healing the effects of inadvertence (close parallel to retroactive laws). Just like retro laws ok to cure in a general prospective system, same with inadvertence. If always inadvertence, bad, but like this, to cure, workable.
But this curing cannot explain all instances where legal liability arises without fault. :
Strict liability! Often justified by economic principle that the foreseeable social costs of an enterprise ought to be reflect in the private costs of conducting that enterprise.
What we want with SL, is not that it cease commanding the impossible, but that it define as clearly as possible the kind of activity that carries a special surcharge of legal responsibility. Can easily expand this concept, in some countries it exists for all automobile related incidents.
BUT: don’t extent SL to all acts, would lose connection between cause and effect (poet writes sad poem, man kills himself, who caused it)?
Mixed legislative motives for SL, like inducing more care.
Most serious infringement of principle that law should not command the impossible: creating SL in criminal liability. – possession of narcotics, gamblings, drugs.
They serve to convenience the prosecutor, there apparent injustice is removed by the selective enforcement. Because it is only the villains who are pursued in practice. And when absolute liability is coupled with drastic penalties, position of prosecutor is further improved. Deterrent effect or grateful when let off.