In Civil Law legal system there is a distinction made.
Proper Strict Liability which is plainly Strict Liability like used in the English Language( guiltless liability/ liability regardless of guilt simply because damages occured)
And improper strict Liability in which guilt is required but the burden of proof is reversed. E.g The consumer is in a weaker position to prove and bargain so the merchant is usually required to prove that they did nothing wrong( they abode by the law). Which is entirely unproblematic given the relative positions of the parties.
How is Proper Strict Liability in accordance with Necessity, Proportionality and Human Value?
I am not allowed to seek the conformance with law of the general public when trying a specific person (otherwise I would be using them, as a means for the general good) while that person is free of guilt which renders the whole liability unnecessary for them personally( no matter what sanction they expected the damages would occur nonetheless).