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.

i think the correct answer is f