What is the difference between strict liability and tortuous liability?

The best way to answer that is an airplane analogy. If a plane crash occurs, you know it is not the fault of the passenger, so the fault is strict liability with the airline or plane manufacturer. A car collision is a good illustration of allocated fault. Say two cars approach an intersection and the car to the right has the right of way, but is exceeding the speed limit. The car to the left enters the intersection as does the car to the right. Both sides will say it was the fault of the other. Fault could be allocated between the two parties by the jury.

Negligence and Strict liability both will arise from a tort, in most cases. Strict Liability does not require proof of negligence. Still, you must prove that the injury arises out of the source that has strict liability. Normally, you are required to prove negligence to recover for a tort.

Strict liability refers to a product that is inherently dangerous and likely to cause injury. There is no term "tortuous" liability. A tort is a civil wrong for which you can make a claim. Liability attaches when there is a lack of due care or a lack of reasonable care (basically means the same thing).

I can articulate the legal difference between the two, but can you provide a little more background before I do so?

Good Question. Strict liability is a type of tortuous liability, much like speeding is a type of traffic offense. Most civil cases are either contract cases or tort cases. There are others, such as cases arising from property law, corporate law, estate law, etc. Tort cases include negligence cases, intentional torts such as assault and battery, slander, invasion of privacy, etc. The most common tort case is a negligence case. Auto accident cases are the most common of these, but "slip and fall" and malpractice cases are also included. There are some torts that involve strict liability, that is, the plaintiff does not have to prove negligence or an intentional infliction of injury, to prevail. One example is when a person, or company, is engaged in an inherently dangerous activity that causes injury. For example, if someone is dynamiting rocks near a city to clear room for a highway, and someone in the city is injured, there might be strict liability even if there was no negligence. In SC there is a type of strict liability for dog bites. There used to be a "two bite rule", meaning an owner had to be on notice that a dog is vicious and prone to bite to be liable. Being on notice and still allowing the dog around people is negligent. Years ago, the court adopted a new rule that an owner is strictly liable for a dog bite. There may be some exceptions, such as where you have the dog penned up and someone goes into the pen. Products liability is one of the more common strict liability cases. If a manufacturer distributes a product that is unreasonably dangerous, the manufacturer is liable for any damages cause by the product even if there was no negligence in the manufacture of the product. A product can be unreasonably dangerous because of a manufacturing defect (ie a flaw that does not conform to the way the product is designed, such as tire with a weak spot), or because of an unsafe design. An example might be a crib that allows a baby to get its head through the slats and strangle itself. Even if the manufacturer followed all existing standards and all due care in designing the crib, if the court found the crib to be unreasonably dangerous, the manufacturer would be liable. This may be a Bad example because the manufacturer would probably have been negligent in designing such a product. In fact, in most products cases, the plaintiff usually alleges both negligence and strict liability based on an unreasonably dangerous product. Whether a product is unreasonably dangerous is a question of fact for the jury to decide (or for the judge in a bench trial. Bench trials are rare because defendants almost always request jury trials. This is because juries overwhelmingly favor defendants in personal injury cases, contrary to popular myth). The issue of whether a product is unreasonably dangerous is based on a number of factors, including, what was the "state of the art" in the design of this product at the time of manufacture, the cost of a safer alternate design, Whether a safer design would reduce the functionality of the product, and so on.

Tortuous liability does not exist in the law. Tort liability is based on negligence. Strict liability is rare, based on statute.

Assuming you are discussing strict liability and negligence, the difference is essentially having to prove, through facts based upon common or statutory law, that someone was negligent, to wit: did something they should not have; versus, only having to prove that something took place, which would hold someone strictly liable.