What defense effectively bars recovery in strict liability actions?

In strict liability actions, the defense of assumption of the risk is effective in barring recovery because it establishes that the plaintiff voluntarily engaged in activities knowing the risks involved. In the context of strict liability, particularly in cases involving ultra-hazardous activities or defective products, the plaintiff's awareness and acceptance of the inherent risks can preclude them from recovering damages.

When a plaintiff assumes the risk, it signifies that they have acknowledged the dangers associated with a particular activity or product and have chosen to proceed regardless. This defense stands strong even in the absence of negligence on the part of the defendant, as the rationale is that individuals should be responsible for their choices, especially when they willingly take on the associated dangers.

While contributory negligence might affect recovery in negligence cases, strict liability does not typically rest on the fault or conduct of the defendant. The necessity of action and the negligence of the animal owner are also not recognized as viable defenses in strict liability under most circumstances, further reinforcing that assumption of the risk is the most relevant and effective defense in these types of cases.