Understanding Strict and Absolute Liability in Tort Law: A Comprehensive Analysis, Slides of Law

Download Understanding Strict and Absolute Liability in Tort Law: A Comprehensive Analysis and more Slides Law in PDF only on Docsity!

Concept of Strict & Absolute

Liability under Law of Torts

• (^) The concept of Strict Liability in torts is also referred as “No-Fault Liability”,

“that liability would exist irrespective of any fault”.

There exist certain activities which are inherently so dangerous in nature that

merely carrying them on poses a duty on the person who does so, to compensate for

any damage irrespective of any carelessness on their part.

The rationale behind imposing such liability is the foreseeable risk involved in such

activities.

This principle was first applied by the House of Lord in the case of Rylands v.

Fletcher

Ryland v. Fletcher [1868]

Facts of the Case

Mr. Fletcher (Plaintiff) was the lessee of a coal mine and Mr. Ryland (Defendant) was the owner of a mill. He wanted to construct a water reservoir on his land. The defendant appointed an independent contractor for the construction of the reservoir. The Plaintiff had taken a neighboring plot on lease and was working in coal mines. The workers hired by the independent contractor observed hollow portions in the reservoir while constructing it. Instead of sealing the hollow portions, they chose to fill them with mud and continued constructing a water reservoir. After the construction of the reservoir get completed and they filled the reservoir with water. The water escaping from the holes caused immense damage to the coal mines of the Plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit claiming compensation for the loss caused to him due the negligence on the part of the defendant.

Essentials of the Rule of Strict Liability

A. Dangerous thing

A defendant is strictly liable if a dangerous substance escapes from their premises.

No need to prove negligence or intent – liability arises due to the act itself.

Definition of Dangerous Substance: Any substance that is likely to cause harm or

mischief upon escape.

Examples of Dangerous Substances:

Explosives Toxic gases or chemicals Electricity Large volumes of water Fire Wild animals

Essentials of the Rule of Strict Liability

C. Non Natural Use of land Non-natural use refers to a special or unusual use of land that increases the risk to others. For strict liability to apply, the defendant must have used the land in a non-natural way. Natural Use Examples: Electric wiring in a home Supplying cooking gas through a pipeline Lighting a fire in a domestic fireplace If damage occurs due to such natural uses, the defendant will not be liable. Non-natural Use Example: Storing large quantities of water for powering a mill ➤Considered non-natural by the court in Rylands v. Fletcher, increasing danger to others

Exceptions to the Rule of Strict Liability

1. Default of the plaintiff

If the plaintiff has himself done some act which led the thing, at the defendant’s land, to escape and cause damage to him then the defendant will not be held liable for such damage caused to the plaintiff. In the case of Ponting v. Noakes, the defendant had grown some poisonous leaves in his land. The plaintiff’s horse jumped off the boundaries of the defendant’s house and ate those poisonous leaves and died eventually. The plaintiff then approached the Court of Law claiming compensation under the principle of strict liability. The Hon’ble judge in this case said that the vegetation on the defendant’s land did not spread to the plaintiff’s land. It was the horse who jumped off the boundaries of defendant’s house and ate those plant leave. Here, the plaintiff is himself at fault. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to compensation.

Exceptions to the Rule of Strict Liability

3. Common Benefit This exception of strict liability follows the principle of ‘Volenti Non Fit Injuria’. The defendant will not be held accountable if the conduct or escape of the harmful thing was done for the mutual advantage of the defendant and plaintiff. For example, if A and B are neighbours and share a water source that is on A’s property, and if the water leaks and harms B, he cannot sue for damages because A is not responsible for the harm. In the case of Box v. Jubb, The plaintiff, who lived in the same multi-story building as the defendant, had property damaged as a result of the defendant’s reservoir overflowing, which was caused in part by the defendant’s actions and in part by the neighbouring reservoir owners’ actions. The water reservoirs were created with the common good of all occupants of the multi-story building, both the plaintiff and the defendant, in mind, hence the defendant was not held accountable.

Exceptions to the Rule of Strict Liability

3. Act of God If an unforeseeable natural disaster causes the escape of a dangerous substance and results in damage, the defendant might not be held liable. In Nichols v. Marsland, a reservoir was built with proper precautions. An extraordinary amount of rainfall caused the dam to break, flooding the nearby property. The “Act of God” defense was applied in this case, and the defendant was held not liable.

Exceptions to the Rule of Strict Liability

5. Statutory Authority If a particular act is done under authorization of a law or statute, for example, an act done by the government agencies, such an act cannot be made strictly liable. In Green v. Chelsea waterworks & Co., the defendants were required by law to keep a consistent supply of water available. A few pipes broke naturally during the course of the operation and without any negligence on the side of the company, harming the plaintiff’s premises nearby. The Company was not held responsible for any damages because they had been required to do so by law.

Absolute Liability

Meaning of Absolute Liability

Absolute liability is a strict form of liability without any exceptions or defenses, developed in Indian law to deal with hazardous or inherently dangerous industries. Under this rule, a person or enterprise engaged in such activities is absolutely liable to compensate for any harm caused, regardless of fault or negligence. It was formulated by the Supreme Court of India in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) to strengthen the law beyond the traditional English principle of strict liability as laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868).

Essentials of Absolute Liability

a. Engagement in Hazardous or Inherently Dangerous Activity The defendant must be involved in an activity that poses potential risks to the public , such as chemicals, nuclear materials, or other toxic substances. b. Harm Caused as a Result of the Activity There must be damage to life, health, or property due to the conduct or accident arising from such hazardous activity. c. No Need to Prove Negligence Unlike in negligence or strict liability, the claimant need not prove fault. The mere occurrence of harm is sufficient. d. No Defenses Allowed The enterprise cannot plead exceptions like act of God, act of third party, plaintiff’s own fault, or statutory authority.

Evolution of absolute liability The rule of absolute liability evolved in the case of MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987 SCR (1) 819) The facts of the case go on like this that in the city of Delhi in 1985, therewas severe leakage of oleum gas in the month of December 1985. This incident took place in one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries which belonged to the Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. and as a result of this accident an advocate in the Tis Hazari Court had died because of the poisonous fumes and many others were severely harmed. This incident led to the filing of PIL (Public Interest Litigation) in the courts in India. The Apex Court then evolved the rule of absolute liability on the rule of strict liability and stated that the defendant would be liable for the damage caused without considering the exceptions to the strict liability rule. Bhopal Gas Tragedy This rule was upheld in the infamous Bhopal Gas Tragedy which took place between the night of 2nd and 3rd December, 1984. Leakage of 'Methyl Isocyanate' poisonous gas from the Union Carbide Company in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh led to a major disaster. Over three thousand people lost their lives. There was heavy loss to property, flora and fauna. A case was filed in the American New York District Court as the Union Carbide Company in Bhopal was a branch of the US based Union Carbide Company. The case was dismissed owing to no jurisdiction. The Government of India enacted the Bhopal Gas Disaster Act, 1985 and sued the company for damages on behalf of the victims. The court applying the principle of Absolute Liability held the company liable and ordered it to pay compensation to victims.

Further Affirmation and Expansion a. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) Applied absolute liability to environmental degradation caused by chemical industries. Reinforced polluter pays principle. b. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) Introduced the Precautionary Principle and Sustainable Development along with absolute liability. c. Role of National Green Tribunal (2010 onwards) The NGT has consistently applied absolute liability in cases involving: Industrial pollution Toxic waste leakage Environmental harm E.g., Sterlite Industries Case , LG Polymer Gas Leak (2020), etc.