Which activity would NOT warrant the imposition of absolute liability?

Absolute liability is a legal concept where a party is held responsible for damages or injuries caused by their activities, regardless of fault or negligence. This standard typically applies to inherently dangerous activities that pose significant risks to others, such as keeping wild animals, storing explosives, or conducting demolition projects.

Risky transportation, while it may involve some level of danger, does not automatically meet the criteria for absolute liability because it often involves factors that can be controlled or mitigated through careful planning and adherence to safety regulations. For instance, transporting goods can include precautions, safety measures, and adherence to traffic laws, which means that the operator can be held liable only if they are found to be negligent.

In contrast, activities like keeping wild animals and storing explosives are considered inherently dangerous by their nature, and engaging in these activities does not allow for a defense of negligence; they are deemed absolutely liable due to the elevated risk of harm they present. Therefore, the activity that would not warrant the imposition of absolute liability is risky transportation, as it does not carry the same level of danger that is characteristic of the other activities listed.