<p>In this article, I discuss Keating’s <i>Reasonableness and Risk</i> and critically assess the arguments he puts forward to justify harm-based strict liability, namely the idea of a conditional wrong of harming-without-repairing and the justification based on proportionality of burdens and benefits. I argue that harming-without-repairing is best seen as a moral wrong rather than as a legal wrong, and that harm-based strict liability is best seen as not based on ideas of wrongdoing. I also argue that the argument based on proportionality of burden and benefit comprises two distinct ideas which can sometimes conflict and prescribe different outcomes. Finally, I explore the relationship between proportionality of burden and benefit and loss spreading, explaining the connection between the two as well as the reasons why proportionality of burden and benefit is unattractive to most deontological theorists.</p>