Which scenario does NOT apply to strict liability?

Strict liability pertains to situations where a party is held responsible for damages or injuries caused by their actions, regardless of intent or negligence. This concept is often applied in cases involving inherently dangerous activities or defective products.

The scenario involving water damage caused by an overflowing bathtub does not fit under strict liability. In this case, the event is related to ordinary negligence rather than an inherently dangerous situation. The action taken—filling a bathtub—does not inherently pose a risk of causing harm to others without some form of negligence, such as forgetting to turn off the water. Therefore, liability would depend on whether the homeowner acted reasonably under the circumstances, which moves the situation into the realm of negligence rather than strict liability.

On the other hand, the other scenarios—such as fire spreading from a yard waste burn, injuries from fireworks, and a pilot crashing an airplane—relate to activities that are generally considered inherently dangerous. In these instances, the individuals involved can be held strictly liable for any resulting damages or injuries, regardless of the level of care exercised.