Strict Liability and Absolute Liability

CLAT Study Material

STRICT AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

Law of Torts for CLAT and other law entrance exams

THE CONCEPT OF STRICT AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

LIABILITY

An obligation that legally binds an individual for settling a wrongful act they may have committed.

NO-FAULT LIABILITY

What is no-fault liability?

Legal responsibility for an injury that can be imposed on the wrongdoer without proof of carelessness or fault. 

No-fault liability found in these two cases:

1. Strict Liability

2. Absolute Liability

STRICT LIABILITY

It is a liability without fault, this concept applies where a person is liable despite the absence of fault or negligence.

The rule of Strict Liability has evolved from the rule laid down in Rylands v Fletcher Case(1868).

Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)

Facts of the case:

There was a land (mill) of “defendant” and he wanted to construct a reservoir on his land, so he employed some independent contractors to construct a reservoir on his land. In the course of construction of the reservoir, the contractor dug up the whole land and set the pipelines passing through the land, the pipe was passing very nearly through the coal mine of Plaintiff and there the contractor neglects the holes and cramps which were in the land from which if heavy pressure occurs, water can enter in the coal mine of the Plaintiff. The pipe burst because of the heavy pressure and caused lots of damage to the coal mine. The owner of the Coalmine (plaintiff) files suit against the reservoir owner (defendant). 

Defendant by taking the defence said that damage was caused due to the negligence of the independent contractor. Here plaintiff took the plea that he is not claiming damages under vicarious liabilities rather calming under the strict liability concept. Here the court signifies the concept of strict liability and made the defendant strictly liable for the damage caused to the coal mine.

Essentials to the rule laid down by Lord Cranworth

1. Some dangerous thing must have been brought into the land.

2. The thing must escape.

3. It must be a non-natural use of land.

DANGEROUS THING

In the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, the thing so considered was a large body of water. The water collected in the reservoir was in a huge quantity and was thus regarded to be of potential danger.

ESCAPE

Example:

If the person has planted poisonous plants in his land then it is his duty that no leaves of the poisonous plants shall spread or enter in other’s land and it's his duty to prevent them from escaping but if the person doesn’t obey his duty then he can be held liable for the wrongful act.

In the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, the defendant’s duty was to prevent the water from escaping or to take proper precautions so that it will not result in harm to others. But there, the damage was caused to the coal mine owner when the defendant's thing (water) escaped out of the defendant's control.

NON-NATURAL USE

Water collected in the reservoir was in such a huge quantity in Rylands v. Fletcher was held to be a non-natural use of land. Keeping water for ordinary domestic purposes is a ‘natural use.

Exceptions to the Strict Liability Rule

If there is:

1. Plaintiff’s own fault

2. Act of God

3. Consent of Plaintiff

4. Act of the third party

5. Statutory Authority

PLAINTIFF’S OWN FAULT

If the damage is caused solely by the act or default of the claimant himself (plaintiff) he will get no remedy. In Ponting v. Noakes (1849) the claimant’s horse reached over the defendant’s boundary, the horse ate some poisonous leaves of the tree there and died accordingly.

When the suit was filed, it was held that the claimant could recover nothing from the defendant for the damages because the damages were due to the horse’s own intrusion.

ACT OF GOD

Where damage is caused directly by natural causes or “circumstances which no human foresight can provide and of which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility” such as heavy rainfall. 

Then no remedy is provided in this defence to the plaintiff.

CONSENT OF PLAINTIFF

Where the claimant has expressly or impliedly consented to the danger and there has been no negligence on the part of the defendant, then the defendant will not be liable for it.

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.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY

If an act is done under the authority of statute then in such a case the defendant will not be held liable for the act.

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

Strict Liability without exceptions becomes Absolute Liability.

The principle of Absolute Liability was used in India in the case of M.C Mehta v. Union of India. The burden of proof rests solely on the defendant.

Why was there a need for Absolute Liability?

1. Tort law is dynamic in nature. It had to change with society.

2. Industrialization and economic development of the society.

Defense of Exceptions in strict liability concept might lead to escaping liability for dangerous activities.

Case Law of Absolute Liability

M.C MEHTA V. UNION OF INDIA, 1987

On 4th and 6th December 1985 leakage of Oleum Gas from one unit Of Shriram Foods and Fertilisers Industries in Delhi, belonging to Delhi Cloth Mill Ltd. occurred. In this leakage one advocate practicing in the Tis Hazari Court died and several others were affected. A writ petition under Article-32 of the Constitution was brought by way of public interest litigation.

The Supreme Court took a hard and bold decision holding that it was not bound to follow the 19th Century rule of English Law, and it could evolve a rule suitable to the prevailing social and economic conditions of the country at the present day. It evolved the rule of 'absolute liability' as a part of Indian Law in preference to the rule of strict liability laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher. 

C.J Bhagwati observed in this context: 

"We are of the view that an enterprise, which is engaged in the hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential to threaten the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous activity which it has undertaken. 

The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide for the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged. It must be conducted with the highest standard of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it would be no answer to the enterprise to say that it has taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part."

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION V. UNION OF INDIA 

In 1984, a mass disaster, the worst in recent times, was caused by the leakage of Methyl Isocyanate and other toxic gases from the Union Carbide Corporation Ltd. (UCC) at Bhopal. While the suits were pending in the New York District Court an offer of 350 million dollars had been made by UCC for the settlement of the claim. This effort continued when the dispute arising out of interim compensation ordered by the District Court of Bhopal came before the High Court.

As to the quantum of compensation, it was argued that the principle laid down in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, should be adopted. It was held by the Court that the settlement cannot be assailed as violative of M.C Mehta’s principle which might have arisen for consideration in a strict adjudication. 

The Supreme Court of India decided this case on Mehta's principle of absolute liability. The Court held the decision laid down by Supreme Court in the Oleum Gas Leak case, that once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity is by far the more appropriate and binding.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STRICT AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

1. Strict liability arises from the non-natural use of land, whereas absolute liability arises from hazardous activity.

2. Strict liability is subject to some defences, whereas absolute liability is not subject to any defences.

3.Generally, substantial damages are awarded in strict liability, whereas in absolute liability both substantial and exemplary damages are awarded as well as depending upon the nature of the activity. 

CONCLUSION

The rule of strict liability and absolute liability can be seen as exceptions. Generally, a person is made liable only when he is at fault, but the principle governing these two rules signifies that a person can be made liable even without his fault. This is known as the principle of “no-fault liability”.

The writer is pursuing a degree of BA.LL.B (Bachelors of legislative law)

From, Department Of Law, Maharshi Dayanand University (Rohtak) Haryana, INDIA.

Reach him at Instagram @shivaanshvermaa