THE NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY , BHOPAL

LAW OF TORTS - 1
FIRST TRIMESTER
PROJECT
TOPIC – ABSOLUTE LIABILITY JOURNEY FROM RYLAND VS
FLECHER TO OLIUM GAS LEAKAGE

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

ANURAG RAJPUT PROF.(DR.)RAJIV KUMAR KHARE

2019 BA LLB (HONS) 120

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Project titled- Absolute liability has been prepared and submitted by
Anurag Rajput who is currently pursuing his BA LLB .(Hons.) at National Law Institute
University ,Bhopal in fulfilment of Law of Torts - 1 course .It is also certified this is original
research report and this project has not been submitted to any other university ,nor published
in any journal .

Date

Signature of the student

Signature of the research supervisor

Acknowledgement

This project has been made possible by the unconditional support of many people, I would like
to acknowledge and extend my heartfelt gratitude to Prof. (Dr.) Rajiv Kumar Khare for guiding
me throughout the development of this project into a coherent whole by providing helpful
insights and sharing their brilliant expertise.

I, also would like to thank the members of the library staff and computer section for the
cooperation in making available the books and accessing the internet even during their free
time. I am deeply indebted to my parents, seniors and friends for all the moral support and
encouragement.

Anurag Rajput
 Table of content

Page no.

I. Introduction
....................................
II. Concept of absolute liability.
...................................
III. Background for the development of the principle of absolute liability
....................................
IV. an introduction of absolute liability in India
....................................
V. Case analysis
………………………
VI. Indian council for enviro legal action vs Union of india
....................................
VII. Review of literature
....................................
VIII. Conclusion
....................................
IX. Bibliography
.....................................
List of cases

i. Mc Mehta v. Union of India

ii. Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (Bhopal gas tragedy)
iii. The controversial decision in the case of Union Carbide India limited v. Union of India
iv. Rylands v. Fletcher
v. Indian council for enviro legal action vs Union of india
1 INTRODUCTION

‘Tort’ word derived from Latin WordTortumwhich means to twist in literal sense. legal
meaning of tort is wrongful act/conduct. there are different types of tort such as defamation
,nusance ,tresspass, negligence etc. no specific defination has been possible which could
mention certain specific elements till now.some lawyers propounded various defination.

according to salmond-it is a civil wrong for which the remedy in common law action is
unliquidated damagesand which is not exclusively the breach of contract or breach of trust.

according to:

Salmond-It is a civil wrong for which the remedy in common law action for unliquidated
damages and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of trust or other
merly equitable obligation.

Limitation act,1963-tort means a civil wrong which is not exclusively a breach of contract
or breach of trust.

Winfield-tortious liability arises from breach of duty primarily fixed by the law:this duty is
towards persons generally and its breach is redreasable by an action for unliquidated damages.

Fraser-it is an infringement of a right in rem of a private individual giving a right of

compensation at the suit of injured party.

From these definition it is conclude that tort is a civil wrong and not every civil wrong is a tort.
It is not codified yet.

To determine whether tort is committed or not-

1 check whether it is a civil wrong or a criminal wrong.

2 check it is not exclusively the breach of trust or breach of contract.

If all these conditions are met then tort is committed.

Aims of tort is to make the person in situations when tort is not committed so,that to protect
the legal rights and interest of general public and give remedies as a compensation to person.

Essentials of tort-
1 there must be an act or omission by defendant.

2 plaintiff suffers legal injury.

I am discussing on a topic 'absolute liability' in this projectabsolute liability is a 'no fault'

liability. This liability tends under exceptional cases. This liability introduce in American
restatement. There is no liability of absolute liability in England. In absolute liability the oldest
case is cattle trespass and Ryland vs Fletcher case is modified of cattle trespass.

Essentials of absolute liability-

1 dangerous thing must be bought by person on his land.

2 dangerous thing must escape from his land.

3 there must be non natural use of land by defendant.

If these essentials are met then person is liable under absolute liability.in this liability no
defence is available to person even if he done it with proper care or an action even without
negligent in his activity. No matter what he done to protect the dangerous thing to escapehe is
liable under absolute liability.

Different types of absolute liability under law-

1 liability for cattle trespass.

2 liability under Ryland vs Fletcher.

3 liability of common carriers and inn keepers.

4 Liability of vicarious liability.

5 liability under statutes.

Difference between strict liability and absolute liability-

Strict liability-

1. Dangerous thing must be brought by defendant on his land.

2. It must escape.

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

And defences is available to defendant.

Defences-

⮚ 1 plaintiff own default. - Where the plaintiff has expressly or impliedly consented
to the presence of the source of danger.
⮚

2 act of God. - Where the escape is caused directly by natural causes without
human intervention in circumstances which no human foresight can provide against
and of which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility is excluded
from under the rule.

3 statutory authority. -Any act carried out under a statute is immune to the
rule of strict liability

4 act of third party. - The escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger,

5 plaintiff consent. -Where the source of danger is maintained for the common
benefit of the plaintiff and defendant.

6 thing naturally present on land.

Absolute liability-

1 dangerous thing must be brought by defendant.

2 it must escape.

3 it must be a non natural use of land.

But the no defences is available.

Development of absolute liability in India and abroad-

First thing before development that in world absolute liability introduce in case of Ryland vs
Fletcher case.

India-

In India rules of absolute liability first introduce in case of M.C Mehta vs Union of India.
Something I want to mention that in this case it is a land mark judgement which gives absolute
liability in India.

Here,I tell little bit about this case in this case poisonous olium gas is leaked in industry situated
in Delhi.people were effected on large scale and then this rule also apply in case of Bhopal gas
leakage case.where methyl isocyanate gas leak from Union carbide company vin which
thousand of people died in on night.

Canada-

In Canada absolute liability was first introduce in case RV city of Sault ste-marie.

Why was shift from strict liability to absolute liability-

There are many reasons due to which we shift from strict liability to absolute liability. Most
important reason is that when defendant cause injury to masses/person and when the action
comes under the strict liability defendent take various defences to absolve from liability and
don't pay damages/ compensation. Even they are negligently in his act and effected people can't
get compensation of damage. To avoid this , absolute liability is introduced.

2 CASES-

Indian council for Enviro-Legal action v Union of India1

Summary of facts

1.pitition filed by an environment organization.

AIR 2002 DELHI 124

AIR 1996 SC 1446
2 Hindustan agro chemicals limited established in bichhrivillage,udaipur Rajasthan.
3 it produce harmful chemicals like olium and H acid.
4 during manufacturing of these acids they produces highly toxic which harm and not properly
treated while realising.
5 this toxic effects the earth ground water as well as subterranean supply of water . It becomes
very toxic for cattle and for irrigating the land. Soil is unfit for cultivation. It lead to
deaths,desease and disaster in village.
6 Hindustan agro chemicals limited has no objection certificate from pollution control board
for water prevention and control of pollution.
7 later,they are producing sulphuric acid and oleum in respondent no. 4 to 8
8 center for science and environment study the situation in bichhri village and submit report.
9 report states that toxic polluted water and destroying agricultural land.
10 court order the national engeneringreaserch institute to study the situation in bichhri village.
11 this report clearly state that the HACL is polluting the water and environment.

Judgement

This judgement given by justice DalvirBhandari,HLDattu

1 he said that We are convinced that the law stated by this court in olium gas leakage case
is more appropriate one apart form the fact that is binding upon us.
2 according to this rule once the activity carried on hazardous or inherently dangerous the
person carying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by
his activity irrespective of fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying of this activity.
3 respondent no.4 to 8 are absolutely liable to compensate for the harm caused by them to
villagers.
4 Question of liability of respondent to defray the costs of remedial measures can also be looked
into from another angle by principle "polluter pays" it demands that financial costs of
preventing or remedying damage caused by pollution should lie with undertakings which cause
the pollution. under the principal it is not the role of government to meet the costs involved in
either carrying out remedial action because the effect of this would be shift the financial burden
of pollution incident to tax payer.
Analysis of judgment

1 In this judgement company was absolutely liable.

2 this is a another landmark judgement taken by supreme court.
3 I said this because that the company are negligent they take defences and plead that they
take all precautions.
4 Due to this judgement the scope of absolute liability increases.
5 another thing that i analysis in this judgement that how the system is negligent that type of
company are running and no one care about it.
RYLAND VS FLECHER CASE

Summary of facts-

In this case the Ryland was an defendant and flecher was an plaintiff. The defendant was a
owner of mill and plaintiff was on lease of coal mines. Defendant constructed a reservoir by
the help of independent contractor.while constructing independent contractor found some
unusual shafts that were not working properly. Independent contractor does not heed this
malfunctioning and by negligently independent contractor fills thease shafts with mud. He
know that by filling the shafts with mud will cause damage.but he ignore this. When the
construction work completed defendant fills the reservoir with water.then water overflow from
the shafts and causes flood to plaintiff coal mines after this plaintiff sustained the loses and
plaintiff files the suit agaist the defendant for compensation that act causes damages.but
defendant took the defence that this artificial reservoir made by independent contractor so I am
was not responsible for that damages.

JUDGEMENT-

By the facts that given above court held that the person who for his own purpose brings on his
land and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escape must keep it in at his own
danger.it means that defendant will be lible if thease situation will match. And according to the
court same is reflected by judge that defendant must be liable for tort of strict liability.it does
not mater that defendant done his work by indepemdentcontractor.this decision is given by
house of2 lords.

2
(1994)ALL ER 53
ANALYSIS-3

In this case I analyse that if defendant causes damages to another person even he does not do
that act and done by independent contractor then he does not take defence that I do not do that
act. he will be liable in case of dangerous thing brings on his land and it escape and causes
damages. This is the main thing that I remember and analyse while studying the case.

M C MEHTA VS UNION OF INDIA-

Summary of facts-

In this case there was an oleum gas leak from shri ram food and fertilizers limited at complex
in new Delhi. This is very poisionous gas and causes hazardous damages in locality. Before
the gas leakage district magistrate order him to move out from delhi and set your factory
somewhere else but they not take any heed after the gas leak thousand of people did in this
leakage..at this point MC Mehta file public interest litigation in supreme court for
compensation and demanded that to closed the manufacturing in india.

JUDGEMENT-

By the facts given above the supreme court grant partial permission for manufacturing of olium
gas and mind the every safety measures and those who suffered the damages from your gas
leakage you have to pay the compensation. Court directed rs.20 lakhs for compensation.and
court held absolutely liable the shri ram food and fertilizers limited. And also make various
conditions to open the factory again.ifthease conditions are not full fill by you then we take
strict action agaist you.

3
(1987) 1 SCC 395
ANALYSIS-

In this case I analye that court held that shri ram food and fertilizers limited absolutely liable
and directed to give compensation. But main point is that even theshri ram food and fertilizers
is held absolutetly liable but court do not direct to close manufacturing of olium gas. There is
a very solid reason behind this decision. It does because if they directed to close the factory
then about 4000 people will unemployed and also the scarcity of detergents and all other
various things.

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION VS UNION OF INDIA-

Summary of facts-

On the midnight of 2-3 december 1984 leak of methyl isocynate from union carbide
corporation,USA.this gas is extremely hazardous and poisionous in nature.in this leakage about
3000 people died and about 6 lakh people injured. After this happening government of india
proclaimed an ordinance entitled to Bhopal gas leak disaster act 1985.

JUDGEMENT-

Union of india filed a case on behalf of victim in us district court new York.but new York
court dismissed the pittition on ground of non conviniance.then union of india filed case in
Bhopal district court and directed to pay 270 million dollor to victim as compensation.and then
they filed a case for civil revision before Madhya Pradesh high court. Court directed to p4ay
205 million dollor. Later both parties prefer to appeal in supreme court and supreme court

4
(1991)4SCC 548
directed t5o pay 470 m illion to victims as compensation.directed to pay this amount by 31
march 1989.

ANALYSIS-

In this case I see that how the liability of absolute is fixed by the court and from this case I
learnt that for defendant held liable in absolute liability,there are conditions to be met. In this
case hazardous gas leak which kill about3000 people at a time that it is clear that there must be
extraordinary hazardous act must occur.

METHOD OF STUDY-

This project is largely based on doctrinial method of study.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE-

1 law of torts-1 module of nliu-

From this module I get an idea about the topic. It shows me the right direction while making
the project . this is the 2019-20 eddition module.

2 law of torts by R K BANGIA-

From this book I get an idea about the different cases that I stated in this project . the book I
use this book twenty forth edition 2017.

3 law of torts by ratanlal and dheerajlal book-

From this book I deal with various factors related to project such as how to analysis a

5
judgement, about absolute liability etc.

HYPOTHESIS-

if absolute liability had not been developed then environment problem would have been more
agrivating.i said this because when I was studying different cases on absolute liabily I notice
that most of the cases are related to environment issues which effect the environment badly.like
in Bhopal gas leakage case due to leak of gas which cause greater damage to environment.in
also in mc Mehta case same is happen. If absolute liability not developed then this kind of cases
will happen and defendant take the defence and absolve from liability.

OBJECTIVES OF STUDY-

1 To clearly understand the definition of absolute liability.

2 to obtain a deep understanding concept of absolute liability.

3 to understand the acts comes under absolute liability.

4 to understand the Indian concept of absolute liability and related cases.

CONCLUSION-

After completion of this project I conclude that there is a difference between strict liability and
absolute liability.i make differences from the landmark cases that supreme court delivered.after
this I understand how to analysis the judgement given by supreme court of india and
abroad.also understand the development of absolute liability by time. Understand that how we
shift from strict liability to absolute liability.by studying different cases I understand that how
to liable a defendant in strict liability or absolute liability.
BIBLIOGRAPHY-

BOOKS;

1 Law of torts by R K Bangia revised by DR.Narendrakumar(former professor department of

laws)Punjab university,chandigarh published by allahbad law agency.

2 law of torts-1 module of nliu

Module of 2019-20 edition created by DR.(PROF.) Rajiv kumarkhare.

INTERNET SOURCES;

1 www.manupatra.com

2 www.indiankanoon.com

3www.jastor.org