Session 2: Liability

Cases and Principles

 Rylands v Fletcher [Strict liability]
 Union Of India vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors., SCC 2008 [dismissing the claim
of contributory negligence and enforcing liability]

Ryland v Fletcher
(1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330
Central Question – Whether Ryland can be held responsible for an injury which could not be
prevented by any care on his part?
Facts
Fletcher and Ryland had adjoining lands. Fletcher was a lessee of mines and had worked up
his mines upto a particular spot where there were certain old passages of disused mines,
connected to shafts. Ryland employed an engineer and contractor to construct a reservoir on
his land. The, engineer and contractor, did not block the shafts while constructing the reservoir.
This resulted in water flowing through some of the shafts and flooding Fletcher’s mines.
Consequently, Fletcher brought an action against Ryland. At the time of the occurrence of the
accident, Ryland was not aware of the presence of old shaft and pits.
This case was an appeal by Ryland against the decision of the lower court.
Arguments Raised
Fletcher stated that he would not have complained if the water had come into his mine from
natural causes alone. However, the water entered Fletcher’s land because of non – natural land
usage (making of reservoirs). Therefore, Ryland was bound to ensure that this act of making
reservoir did not produce mischief to anyone. According to Fletcher, having failed to take
reasonable care made Ryland liable.
Ryland contended that the injury which happened was merely consequential and was the result
of circumstances. He argued that neither knowledge nor negligence in providing against them
could be imputable to him. Ryland claimed that the fault lay with Fletcher, as he began work
in his mines some years earlier and was aware of these passages. Fletcher ought to have
communicated his knowledge so that they might then have provided against this mischief.
Decision
The Court based their decision on the reasoning that:
“for when one person, in managing his own affairs, causes, however innocently,
damage to another, it is obviously only just that he should be the party to suffer.”
Further, a distinction was made between ‘natural’ and ‘non-natural’ use of the land for deciding
liability. The court observed that if Ryland had use only in ordinary course of the enjoyment
of land or for natural use of the land, leading to accumulation of water into Fletcher’s s land,
then there could not have arisen any liability against the former. However, “if he brings upon
his land anything which would not naturally come upon it, and which is in itself dangerous,
and may become mischievous if not kept under proper control, even if he may act 'without
personal willfulness or negligence, he will be liable in damages for any mischief thereby
occasioned.”
Considering the above, if water naturally rising in Ryland's land had by percolation found its
way down to the Fletcher's mine through the old workings, and had impeded his operations, it
would not have afforded him any ground of complaint. However, Ryland brought onto their
land a large accumulated mass of water, and stored it up in a reservoir, flooding Fletcher’s land.
Thus, being liable.
The Court established the principle of strict liability by way of this case. It held that a person
would be liable for a mischief, irrespective of him having prior knowledge of it or not. As long
as the cause of mischief is ‘non-natural’, a person would be held strictly liable for negligence.
On this basis, the Court found Ryland responsible for the damage caused to Fletcher even when
Ryland had not been aware of the source of mischief.
 Union of India v Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others
(2008) 9 SCC 527
Central Question – Whether the Railways was strictly liable for an ‘untoward incident’
occurred to a passenger and liable for payment of compensation?
Facts
A petition was filed by Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others [ Respondents], before Railway
Claims Tribunal, whose wife died in a train accident at Varkala Railway station. The deceased
was a bona fide passenger holding a second - class season ticket and an identity card issued by
the Southern Railway. She fell on to the railway track and was run over by another train.
Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others instituted proceedings holding the Railways strictly
liable as stated under section 124A1 of the Railways Act.
Note that to claim compensation and make the Railways liable under Section 124A, the
respondents had to prove that the accident fell under the purport of ‘untoward incident’,
as defined under section 123 (c).
The Railway Claims Tribunal found the Railways liable. The decision of the Railway Claims
Tribunal was challenged by the Railway before the High Court. The High Court also found
Railway liable for the accident. This decision was then challenged by the Railway before the
Supreme Court.

Arguments Raised
The Railways contended that there was no fault on its part t. They argued this is a case of
contributory negligence as the deceased had attempted to board the train and fallen from it. The
accident did not fall under the definition of ‘untoward incident’, as it was not an ‘accidental
falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers’. Therefore, the appellant not liable.
Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others argued that the deceased had sustained injuries in her
anxiety to get into the train which was moving. Hence, the incident was within the scope of
the expression 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' which is an
'untoward incident' as defined in section123 (c)2.
Decision
The Supreme Court reiterated the position taken by the High Court that it did not make any
difference, legally, whether the deceased was actually inside the train or she was only trying to

1
Section 124A titles as ‘Compensation on account of untoward incident’ states - When in the course of working
a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default
on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the
dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof,
the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay
compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or
injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident…’
2
Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989 is titled as ‘definition’. S. 123(c) of the Act defines 'untoward incident’ to
include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.
get into the train, when she fell down, as both the occurrences are within the ambit of ‘untoward
incident’, defined under section 123 (c) of the said act.
The Supreme Court observed that the expression ‘accidental falling of a passenger from a train
carrying passengers’ was capable of two interpretations, first, it only applies when a person has
actually got inside the train and thereafter falls down from it, and second, that it includes a
situation where a person is trying to board the train and falls down while trying to do so. The
Court chose to accept and apply the second meaning as the provision for compensation under
the Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and a liberal interpretation should therefore
be taken.
The Court stated that adoption of a restrictive meaning of the expression ‘accidental falling of
a passenger from a train carrying passengers’ would deprive a large number of railway
passengers from getting compensation in railway accidents. Therefore, the expression includes
a passenger traveling with a valid ticket or pass who while trying to enter into a railway train
had fallen down.
The Court held that the wordings of section 124A clearly lays down strict liability in case of
railway accidents. Thus, making the Railways liable in the present case, “irrespective of how
the deceased met with the accident and irrelevant as to who was at fault.”
The Supreme Court upheld the claim sought by the victim and found Railways strictly liable
for the accident.