[fabsroman]

Strict Liability in a tort context means that the Defendant is liable for the Plaintiff's damages without the Plaintiff having to show that the Defendant was negligent.

Strict Liability in a criminal context means that mens rea ("guilty mind") does not need to be proven for the Defendant to be found guilty. The simplest example of this is a speeding ticket. You do not need to know that you were speeding and the LEO does not need to show that you intended to speed, for you to be found guilty. The converse is a Maryland citation for spinning wheels (i.e., burning rubber). The LEO needs to show that you intended to spin the wheels, and that it wasn't an accident.

In Maryland, dogs are treated as property, and the cap for damage to a dog is $2,500, which I do not necesarily agree with because some dogs can be worth a lot more than that. $1,300 for the death of a dog isn't unconscionable as far as the worth of the dog is concerned. It costs a lot of money to raise a dog, plus some dogs cost quite a bit as puppies. If the judgment were $100K+, then I would have fallen out of my chair.

Granted, if somebody killed my dog, Nitro, I don't think $1,300 would make me whole again, or $2,500 for that matter.