strict liability

The principle of strict liability evolved in the case of Ryland’s v Fletcher1 .

principle of strict liability

states that any person who keeps hazardous substances on his premises will be held responsible if such
substances escape the premises and causes any damage

Ryland’s v Fletcher1

F had a mill on his land, and to power the mill, F built a reservoir on his land. Due to some accident, the
water from the reservoir flooded the coal mines owned by R. Subsequently, R filed a suit against F. The
Court held that the defendant built the reservoir at his risk, and in course of it, if any accident happens then
the defendant will be liable for the accident and escape of the material

strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his/her acts and
omissions regardless of culpability (including fault in criminal law terms, typically the presence of mens
rea). Under strict liability, there is no requirement to prove fault, negligence or intention

In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as
negligence or tortious intent). The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant
was responsible

The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous. It discourages reckless
behavior and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution

Essentials of Strict Liability

Dangerous Substances:

The defendant will be held strictly liable only if a “dangerous” substances escapes from his premises
, a dangerous substance can be defined as any substance which will cause some mischief or harm if it
escapes. Things like explosives, toxic gasses, electricity, etc. can be termed as dangerous things.

Escape

material should escape from the premises and shouldn’t be within the reach of the defendant after its
escape. For instance, the defendant has some poisonous plant on his property. Leaves from the plant enter
the property of the plaintiff and is eaten by his cattle, who as a result die. The defendant will be liable for
the loss
f Reads v. Lyons & Co6 it was held that if there is no escape, the defendant cannot be held liable

Non-natural Use:

To constitute a strict liability, there should be a non-natural use of the land. In the case of Rylands v.
Fletcher, the water collected in the reservoir was considered to be a non-natural use of the land. Storage of
water for domestic use is considered to be natural use. But storing water for the purpose of energizing a
mill was considered non-natural by the Court

Supply of cooking gas through the pipeline, electric wiring in a house, etc. is considered to be the natural
use of land

Cambridge Water Co. vs. Eastern Counties Leather,

The court upheld that for strict liability to apply, the defendant must be aware that the thing kept on his land
will cause damage or ‘mischief’ to the plaintiff’s land on its escape, this is an essential element16

Jai Laxmi Salt Works vs. State of Gujarat

he defendants to manufacture salt from sea-water constructed a dam on a large portion of the land. Due to
negligent construction of the dam, water overflowed from it and spread all around and damaged the
plaintiff’s factory
court held that the rule of strict liability will not apply here even though it is a non-natural use of the land as
the damage arose not due to construction of the dam but due to improper construction of the same. It held
the defendant
Exemptions to the Rule

 Default of the claimant

 Act of God  Statutory Authority  Consent of the claimant  Act of third party.

Default of the Claimant

If the damage is caused solely by the act or default of the claimant himself, he has no remedy.

Pointing v Noakes

claimant’s horse reached over the defendant’s boundary, nibbled some poisonous tree there and died
accordingly and it was held that the claimant could recover nothing, for the damage was due to the horse’s
own intrusion and alternatively there had been no escape of vegetation.

Act Of God

Where the escape is caused directly by natural causes without human intervention in “circumstances which
no human foresight can provide and of which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility”,
the defense of Act of God applies.

in Nichols v Marsland10.

this case the defendant for many years had been in possession of some artificial ornamental lakes formed
up by damming up a natural stream. An extraordinary rainfall, “greater and more violent than any within
the memory of the witnesses” broke down the artificial embankments and the rush of escaping water
carried away four bridges
found that she was not negligent and the court held that she ought not to be liable for an extraordinary act
of nature which she could not foresee or reasonably anticipate.

Statutory Authority
rule in Rylands v Fletcher may be excluded by statute

Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co,

for instance a main belonging to a waterworks company, which was authorized by Parliament to lay the
main, burst without any negligence on the part of the company and the claimant’s premises were flooded;
the company was held not liable

Consent of the Claimant

Where the claimant has expressly or impliedly consented to the presence of the source of danger and there
has been no negligence on the part of the defendant, the defendant is not liable. The exception merely
illustrates the general defense, volenti non-fit injuria

Act of Third Party

If the harm has been caused due to the act of a stranger, who is neither the defendant’s servant nor the
defendant has any control over him, the defendant will not be liable under this rule.

Box v Jubb

overflow from the defendant’s reservoir was caused by the blocking of a drain by strangers, the defendant
was held not liable for that.

Common Benefit of Plaintiff and the Defendant:

Where the act or escape of the dangerous thing was for the common benefit of the defendant and plaintiff,
the defendant will not be held liable.

Absolute Liability

In India, in the case of MC Mehta v Union of India, the rule of absolute liability developed.
Facts of the case -Some amount of oleum gas was leaked in a particular area in Delhi from industry. Many
people were affected because of leakage. The Apex Court then developed the rule of absolute liability on
the strict liability rule and stated that the defendant would be responsible for the damage caused without
taking into account the exceptions to the strict liability rule.
absolute liability is a standard of tort liability which stipulates that where an enterprise is engaged in a
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the
operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for example, in escape of toxic gas
the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and
such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-à-vis the tortious principle of strict
liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher

court then directed the organizations who had filed the petitions to file suits against the industry in
appropriate courts within a span of 2 months to demand compensation on behalf of the aggrieved victims.

court gave two basic reasons justifying the rule:

1. Any enterprise carrying on hazardous activities for private profits have the social responsibility to
compensate those suffering from any accident and it should absorb such loss as an item of overhead
expenses.
2. The enterprise alone has the resources to discover and guard against such hazards and dangers.

In other words, absolute liability is strict liability without any exception

Essential Conditions In Absolute Liability

 Hazardous Substance

there should be the use of any Hazardous substance cause such an accident. It can be poisonous gases,
fumes, pollutants, water reservoir, explosives etc.

Escape

To held liable the defendant, there should be an escape of a substance or a thing that caused harm
  Mischief

In order to hold a defendant liable, the plaintiff needs to show that some hazardous substance had escaped
and caused some damages.

Bhopal Gas Tragedy / Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India

This doctrine was upheld in the infamous Bhopal Gas Tragedy

Leakage of methyl-iso-cyanide(MIC) poisonous gas from the Union Carbide Company in Bhopal, Madhya
Pradesh led to a major disaster and over three thousand people lost their lives.
ng the principle of ‘Absolute Liability’ held the company liable and ordered it to pay compensation to the
victim

Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action vs. Union of India [pyq]

presence of industries that was causing large scale environmental pollution and endangering the lives of the
villagers who resided in the vicinity of the industries. It violated their right to life and liberty given under
Article 21
Supreme Court initiated instant action and ordered the Central Government and the Pollution Control
Board to constitute strict measures against the said industries. The court upheld the Doctrine of Absolute
Liability here stating that the polluted environment must be restored to a pollution free one conducive for
healthy living by utilizing anti-pollution scientific appliances. The expenditure so incurred in this process
must be paid by the industries even if their properties need to be attached for this purpose. The industries
were made absolutely liable for paying monetary damages for restoration of the environment.

Klaus Mittelbachert vs. East India Hotels Ltd.

German co-pilot suffered grave injuries after diving into the swimming pool of the five-star restaurant.
Upon investigation, it was seen that the pool was defectively designed
court held that five-star hotels that charge hefty amounts owe a high degree of care to its guests
made the hotel absolutely liable for payment of damages. The hefty amounts taken from the guests by the
hotel owners

Acts with No fault liability

Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991

This act has the major aim of providing immediate relief to the persons affected by accident occurring
while handling any hazardous substances

ct says that every owner who works with hazardous substances and hires employees to control those
dangerous things, shall have policies and insurances where he will be insured against liability to give relief
in case of death or injury to a person or damage to property arising from the accident caused while carrying
on the hazardous activities

In respect of already established units, insurance policies had to be taken as soon as possible and the rule
gave the owners the time of one year to get into the insurance contracts. This liability was based on the
principle of ‘no fault liability’.

Hazardous substance means any substance or preparation which by reason of its chemical or physic-
chemical properties or handling, is liable to cause harm to human beings, other living creatures, plants,
micro-organisms, property or the environment. The term ‘handling’ in relation to any hazardous substance
means the manufacture, processing, treatment, package, storage, transportation by vehicle, use, collection,
destruction, sovereign, offering for sales, transfer of the like of such hazardous substance. This is the clause
in the Section 2(c) of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.no

Section 3 of PLIA

embodies the concept of “no-fault” liability by stating that: “3.Liability to give relief in certain cases on
principle of no fault.—(1) Where death or injury to any person (other than a workman) or damage to any
property has resulted from an accident, the owner shall be liable to give such relief as is specified in the
Schedule for such death, injury or damage. (2) In any claim for relief under sub-section (1)the claimant
shall not be required to plead and establish that the death, injury or damage in respect of which the claim
has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of any person.
This Section, however, disentitles workmen [as defined in the Workmen Compensation Act] to claim relief
as a claimant. This is done because they are already entitled to recover adequate compensation under the
Workmen Compensation Act,

) Compulsory, statutory insurance under Section 4 Section 4 of the Act imposes statutory duty upon the
owners of enterprises handling hazardous substances to take out insurance policies to cover the claims
arising with respect to Section 3(1) of the Act. Such a policy has to be renewed from time to time and
should not expire during the period the handling of hazardous substance continues

Further, the owner also has to pay to the insurer the relevant amount for the Relief Fund28 along with the
premium of the policy and the insurer has the duty to pay to the concerned authorities the amount paid by
the owner towards the Relief Fund in due time and prescribed manner

G)Environmental Relief Fund under Section 7A Under Section 7A of the Act, the Central Government has
established an “Environmental Relief Fund” for environmental protection in extension of the polluter-pays
principle.31 The owner is liable to pay an amount in addition to the premium paid to insurance company
which is ultimately deposited in this Fund. This Fund is utilised to pay awards under Section 7(2)(b) of the
Act. 32

Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

deals with the principle of ‘no-fault liability’. According to this principle, the owners of motor vehicles are
liable to pay for the compensation of the victims of accidents caused by them. The criteria through which a
person can claim no-fault liability is where the death or permanent disablement of a person arises due to the
use of a motor vehicle, thus rendering the owner to be jointly as well as severally liable to pay
compensation for the same. The fixed amount to be paid in the case of death is Rs. 50,000 and in the case
of permanent disablement
, a sum of Rs. 25,000.
the claimant is not required to establish that the death or permanent disablement was due to any wrongful
act/neglect/default of the owner.

important to note that a person who is charged under Section 140 of the MVA is also liable to pay
compensation under any other law. The amount paid under Section 140 of the MVA will also be reduced
from the compensation granted under Section 163A if such a situation arises.

India Railways Act

Section 124A lays down strict liability or no fault liability in case of railway accidents
Absolute liability: Strict liability:

destruction is mass destruction destruction is limited to an extent.

degree of damages depends on greatness,

compensation has to be paid as
capacity and financial capability of the
per nature and amount of damage
company
caused

element of escape not crucial. element of escape -crucial.

•Hazardous or inherently dangerous

Any other activities
activities

No exceptions to the rule Provides for exceptions

•Applies to Non-Natural and Natural uses Applies only to Non-Natural use of

of land land

a mistake of fact is not a defense mistake of fact can be a defense