Q 1 What is meant by various liabilities? How does it differ from strict liability.

Law lays certain rights and duties of the individual. It prescribes what one is to do and what one is not to do and what
one is entitled to get it done by someone else. A breach of these rights and duties is called wrong. Whoever commits
such wrong is said to be liable for it. Thus liability arises due to wrongful act or omission of act.According to Salmond,
Liability is a bond of necessity that exists between the wrongdoer and the remedy of the wrong.

2. Meaning of Vicarious liability.Generally a person is held liable for the wrong which he is committed himself. There are
certain cases where one person is made liable for the wrongs committed by another. Such cases are known as Vicarious
Liability.For example: A master is held liable for the wrongful act of his servant in course of his employment. Similarly a
principle will be liable for the wrongful acts of his agents and legal representatives are liable for the acts of dead men.

Constituents of Vicarious Liability:

(1) There must be a relationship of a certain kind.(2) The wrongful act must be related to the relationship in a certain
way.(3) The wrong has been done within the course of employment.Vicarious liability is possible only in civil cases. It is
not common in criminal law. The principle of vicarious liability has no application under in criminal law as it would be
against the public policy to punish a person for the offence committed by someone else. However there arethree
exceptions to this general rule:

a) If there is breach of obligation committed by the servant, owner cannot escape criminal liability. Ex:
Proprietor of the newspaper will be liable for the defamatory marks published though he was living at a distance and
knew nothing about it until he read the newspaper.

b) In case of public nuisance under section 268, IPC, master will be liable for the nuisance caused by his
servant.

c) Under licensing Acts the professional holding licenses would be vicariously punished for the wrongful acts committed
by their servants.

Strict Liability

A man is held responsible for his negligence which results into harm or violation of rights of others. But there are certain
exceptions to this principle. Such cases are those where a person is held liable for his acts even though he did not do it
intentionally or negligently. In other word she will be held liable irrespective of negligence or carefulness. These cases
are covered under the rule of Strict liability.Strict liability falls into three categories i.e., mistake of law,
mistake of fact and inevitable accidents.

a) Mistake of law. An act done under mistake of law is not said to be an intentional act because the doer of the act
does not know that what he is doing is prohibited by law. Ignorance of law is no excuse in almost all the legal systems.
This is expressed in the maxim Ignorantiajurismeminemexcusat. In such cases principle of strict liability applies.

b) Mistake of fact. Mistake of fact is a good defence in law of crimes. But in Indian law mistake of fact is not a defence
in law of torts i.e, civil wrongs. Whoever tries to interfere with the right of another shall not be justified on the grounds
that the act was done in good faith.Ex: If A intending to kill B, kills C mistaking him to be B, A has no defence. But If A is
intending to kill tiger shoots at it and by mistake bullet hits B then he will be exempted from criminal liability due to
mistake of fact. However the act should be reasonable and there should be mistake of fact and not of law
c) Inevitable Accident. Inevitable accidents is commonly recognised as a ground of exemption from liability both in civil
and criminal law. But there are some exception when inevitable accident cannot be availed as a ground of defence.
Such cases will come under Strict liability.Ex: A man is strict liable for the trespass of his cattle.

3. Difference between Vicarious liability and Stict liability.Vicarious liability refers in those cases where a person is held
liable for the wrongful acts of other. But in Strict liability a man is held responsible for those wrongful acts even though
he did not do it intentionally or negligently.Vicarious liability is possible only in civil cases. But Strict liability applies both
in civil and criminal law.

4. Conclusion.Liability arises from breach of duty or violation of law. Therefore Vicarious liability arises on the person
due the wrongful acts of the other and strict liability results in those cases when a man commits wrong even though he
did not do it intentionally. Vicarious liability is a convenient tool as compared to strict liability as it shifts the burden of
liability of one person over the other

Q 2 Explain the importance of the chain of causation in establishing liability?

Law lays certain rights and duties of the individual. It prescribes what one is to do and what one is not to do and what
one is entitled to get it done by someone else. A breach of these rights and duties is called wrong. Whoever commits
such wrong is said to be liable for it. Thus liability arises due to wrongful act or omission of act.

Conditions for imposing liability.

there are certain conditions to impose liability upon a person. The following are:

a) Act/ Wrongful act. b) Mens Rea.c) Intention.d) Motive.e) Malice.f) Negligence.g) Causation.

Meaning of Causation.The common principle of law is man can be held responsible for doing any any
mischievous act or for causing injury to a person or property. To determine liability in law cause of the act is an
important factor. Before deciding liability causation should be decided first.Ex: If A is held responsible for burning B’s
house, first thing to be shown is that A has caused that fire.Causation is an important factor to determine whether it
is civil or criminal liability.

Two types of Causation:a) Abnormal factors.b) Human acts Ex: If B’s house has caught fire due inflammable gas or
electric short circuit or may be because of abnormal cicumstances then it is called abnormal causation, but if A has
deliberately caused the fire to the B’s house then it is called human causation.Either of these factors is necessary to
see causation and indicate liability of doing such act.1.

Chain of Causation with reference cases and illustrations.An act involves several factors for doing it. It is called
chain of causation. If the chain of causation is broken or interfered then the man cannot be held responsible for his
acts. This is contained in the maxim called Novus actus interveniens.Ex: If A stabs B and B is taken to hospital where
the doctor injects some medicine with the knowledge that B is allergic to it despite of that he injects some high dose
of it which resulted in B’s death. Here the chain of causation is broken as the death of is caused due to medicine and
not by stabbing.

Case: Scott v. Shepherd:In this case the defendant shepherd mischievously threw a lighted cigarette into a
marketplace and fell near yates who was selling ginger-bread. Willis to prevent injury to himself and yates picked it
up and threw it over shop of Royal and he picked it and threw it which got stucked in the plaintiff’s eye and injured
him. The Court held that the injury is caused by defendant as Willis and Royal are intermediate agent sacted for the
self-protection. And even if the defendant was not intending to cause harm to the plaintiff yet he is responsible for
the harm caused to plaintiff.

Conclusion.Causation is therefore an element which involves several factors leading to a crime. It an important
factor to determine liability whether in civil or criminal of the wrongdoer and without the chain of causation a man
cannot be held responsible for the harm committed.

Q 3 Discuss Negligence and Different theories of Negligence?

.Jurists have defined “negligence” in different ways. SALMOND observed that negligence is capable
carelessness. To quote him: "negligence is the state of mind of undue indifference towards one's conduct and its
consequences". It is carelessness in the matter in which carefulness is obligatory under the law. Carelessness
excludes wrongful intention.

Negligence - Intentional act is one that was foreseen and desired by the doer. Forbearanceis an intentional negative
act. An unintentional negative act is referred to as an omission. An omission is the non-doing a given act without
adverting to the act not done. –

AUSTIN said, “an omission is not the consequence of an act oj the will but of that state of the mind which is styled
negligence and implies the absence of will and intention.

According to HOLLAND, negligence includes all those shades of inadvertence which result in injury to others but
there is total absence of consciousness on the part of the doer.

WILLES J. holds that "negligence is the absence of such case as it was the duty of the defendant to use ”!.

According to SALMOND negligence is “the state of mind of undue indifference towards one’s conduct and its
consequences”.Negligence essentially consists in the mental attitude of undue indifference with respect. to one’s
conduct and its consequences. Negligence is nothing short of extreme carelessness.Carelessness excludes wrongful
intention. A thing which is intended cannot be attributed ascarelessness. Carelessness or negligence does not
necessarily consist in thoughtlessness orinadvertence.

Negligence as a tort is the breach of a legal duty to make care which results in damage,un desired by the defendant,
to the plaintiff. Thus its ingredients are:

a) A the legal duty on the part of A towards B to exercise in such as conduct of A falls within the scope of the duty
b) .b) Breach of that duty
c) Consequential damages to
Theories of Negligence There are two theories of negligence. One theory was propounded by SALMOND. One
theory was propounded by SALMOND. According to this theory, negligence is a state of mind -mental attitude.
This theory is called the subjective theory of negligence. The other theory has been given by Sir FREDERICK
POLLOCK. According to him negligence is a type of conduct.This is called the objective theory of negligence.
These theories shall be discussed separately.
1. Subjective Theory of negligence The exponents of the subjective theory maintain that negligence is
a state of mind. According to them, negligence consists in the mental attitude of undue indifference with
respect to one’s conduct and its consequence. The subjective theory is given by SALMOND. His view is that
negligence is culpable carelessness. Although negligence is not the same as though tlessnessor inadvertence, it
is nevertheless essentially an attitude of indifference. Therefore, according to this view, negligence essentially
“consists in the mental attitude of undue indifference with respect to one’s conduct and its consequences .A
person is made liable on the ground of negligence because he does not sufficiently desire to avoid a particular
consequence- a harm. He is careless about the consequence and does the act notwithstanding the risk that may
ensure. WINFIELD is also the supporter of this theory.He says that “as a mental element is tortuous liability,
negligence usually signifies total or partial inadvertence of the defendant to his conduct and for its consequence
..According to AUSTIN, “want of advertence which one’s duty would naturally suggest, is the fundamental idea
in the conception of negligence In this opinion, a negligent wrongdoer is one who does not know that his act is
wrongful but would have known it had it not been because of his indolence and inadvertence. Thoughtless is
thus the essence of negligence for AUSTIN.AUSTIN goes a step further elaborating his subjective theory and
distinguishes negligence from heedlessness, rashness and recklessness. For him, negligence is the state of mind
of the person who inadvertently omits an act and breaks a positive duty. In heedlessness he does not think of
probable mischief and does not bother to avert the possible consequences. In rashness, he does foresee the
consequences but foolishly thinks that they “would not follow” as a result of his act.Recklessness, on the other
hand is a condition of mind where the doer foresees the consequences but does not care whether
they result from his act or not. Thus, the line of distinction between rashness and recklessness is very
thin. In the former, there is erroneous thinking that consequences would not follow while in the latter the
person does not bother about the consequences at all. Sir JOHN SALMOND objects to the above
sub-classification of negligence made by AUSTIN and treats all these categories under the common law,
namely,“negligence The reason being that in all of them there is failure of exhibit the standard of care required
of a reasonable man. In his opinion, AUSTIN’S view is fallacious because negligence may also be deliberate or
willful. He, therefore, concludes that “the essence of negligence is not in advertence but carelessness which may
or may not result in inaverfence ".
2. Objective Theory of Negligence According to this theory negligence is not a condition of mind but a particular
kind ofconduct which is to be judged objectively. This theory is supported by FREDREICPOLLOCK. It
is the breach of duty to take care which a reasonable person under thosecircumstances would take. The tort of
negligence is based on objective approach to theconduct and its consequences. According to Sir FREDERICK
POLLOCK, “negligence isthe contrary of diligence and no one describes it as the state of mind"1.
This theorypostulates that negligence is an objective fact. It is not an attitude of mind or a form of“mens rea ’’
at all, but to particular standard of conduct. It is a breach of duty of not takingcare and to take care means to
take precautions against the harmful results of one’s actionand refrain from unreasonably dangerous kinds of
act. For example to drive at night withoutlights is negligence because having lights is the conduct of precaution
adopted by all prudentmen. He who drives without lights in the night has failed in that conduct. So to
determinewhether a man is negligent or not, one need not to go into the state of min but to the standard of his
conduct Negligence thus is a type of conduct and not a state of mind. The viewappears to be correct chiefly in
the law of tort where negligence is nothing more than afailure to achieve the objective standard of a prudent
man, and where a person has failed toachieve that standard of a prudent man, any defence on the ground of
mental state that hetook the utmost care shall be of no use at all to him. Similar is the position in criminal law
aswell. All these are to be judged objectively on the basis as to how a reasonable man wouldhave acted in those
circumstances.

Q 3 Explain the theory of Strict Liability. Refer to Cases?

Generally a man is held liable for the negligence which results into harm of violation ofrights of others. But there
are certain exceptions to this general principle of liability. Such casesare those cases where a person is held
liable for his act even though he did not do it intentionallyor negligently. In other words, he is held liable
irrespective of negligence or carefulness. Thesecases are covered under “strict liability’’ which is known as
absolute liability. In cases coveredunder strict liability, the wrong arises from the breach of an absolute duty. An
“absolute duty"may be defined as a “duty which renders a man liable without any fault of his and irrespective
ofany consideration of intention or negligence on his part”.
The word ‘strict’’ or “absolute” denotes that it is not necessary for the injured party toprove any intention or
negligence on the part of the. wrong-doer and no amount of care orcaution proved by the latter would absolve
him from liability. The principle of absolute liabilityhas been enunciated in the court of Exchequer chamber by
BALCKBUM, J. and affirmed by thehouse of lords in Rylands V. Fletcher1 thus:- BLACKBURN, J. moulded the
different scatteredlegal rules or remedies into a brand and comprehensive principle which combines
restatement,remoulding and making of new law. He collected several cases of liability without fault which
inDean WIGMORE’s words "wandered about unhoused and unshepherded etc. in the pathlessfield of
jurisprudence The doctrine of strict liability is applicable in cases involving wildanimals, dangerous
premises or substances, electricity, water fir explosive etc. which are capableof escape.The object of absolute
liability is not to prevent persons from undertaking hazardous and adventurous activities. The law only expect a
person to do such acts at his own peril, and keephimself ready to compensate the person wronged if any injury
is caused to him by the wrongfulact. SALMOND has grouped cases of strict liability under the following three
heads:-
a) Mistake of law

,b) Mistake of facts, and

b) Inevitable accident
Mistake of Law An act done under the mistake of awl is not said to be an intention act because he doer of it
doesnot know that what he is doing prohibited by law. If a person has committed a wrong undermistake of
law, the law will not hear him say that he had no guilty mind and that but for hisignorance of law, he would
have not done it. Ignorance of law is no excuse in almost al the legalsystems. This is expressed in the maxim,
“ignorantia juris meminem excusat 'ignorance of lawis no excuse’”. Therefore, it is obvious that in such
cases the principle of absolute or strictliability applied because of the presumption that everyone must
know the law relating to his actor conduct. This principle however does not apply in case of ignorance of a
foreign law. Thisirrebuttable presumption, or in other words, the strict liability is on the following grounds:
1) First, that law is definite and knowabie and it is the duty of every person to know the lawconcerning his
rights and duties.
2) Second, law in most of the cases is based on common sense, or in other words, it is basedon the principle
of natural right and wrong which generally every person. A person mightnot be acquainted with tire
Indian penal code, but he knows that to kill a manintentionally, or to seal is a wrong.
3) Third, there shall be evidential difficulties in accepting the defence of the ignorance ofthe law. In most of
the cases the wrongdoers, in the first instance, will take this defenceand the court will have to enquire as to
whether the wrongdoer knew the law or notbefore going into the merits of the case. This will create great
difficulties before thecourts and it will hamper the course of the administration of justice.
Mistake of Fact It is generally said that mistake Of fact is a good defence in law of crimes. But in Englishand
Indian law mistake of fact is not a defence in law of torts, i.e. civil wrongs. He whointerferes with
the right of another shall not be allowed to say that he believed in good faith andn reasonable grounds in
the existence of some circumstances which justified his act. Theprinciple about it is that “ignorantia
facit excusat” 'ignorance of the fact is excuse ’ ”. It meansthat a person is not liable for wrongful at if he has
done it under a mistake of fact. In other wordsmistake is a valid defence against a wrongful act. But this
principle applied only in case of acriminal wrong and not a civil wrong. In civil wrongs, except in few cases
the mistake of fact isnot a valid ground for discharging a person from liability. But in criminal law the strict
liabilityfor a mistake of fact is only in exceptional cases1. An example of such exception, or strictliability is
that if a person kidnaps a girl below 16, he is always liable, although he honestlybelieved that she was
above 16.In R.V.Prince a person who abducted a girl under the legal age of consent was held criminallyliable
and the plea of inevitable mistake as to her age failed as a defence. This is so because theact of taking the
girl away was itself wrongful. However, if the intention of lawful, mistake offact is a valid defence in criminal
law. For instance, if A intending to kill b kills C mistaking himto be B. A has no defence, but if A who is out-
hunting in a forest shoots at a bush thinking that atiger was lurking inside and the bullet hits and kills B, he
will be exempted from criminality dueto mistake of fact. This mistake, in order of quality for exemption from
criminal liability shouldfullfil two conditions, namely
i)It should be reasonable, and
ii) It should be mistake of fact and not of law. Ine Vitable Accedent :- Inevitable accident is
commonly recognized as a ground of exemption from liability bothin civil and criminal law. Accident
may either be culpable or inevitable. It' is culpable whencaused due to negligence but inevitable
when the avoidance of it would have required a degree ofcare exceeding the standard demanded by
law. In other words, an inevitable accident is thatwhich could not possible by prevented by the
exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill. That is,it must be a “physically unavoidable ” nature.
A person is not liable for an act taking place accidentally. Accident differs from a mistakeof fact.
Every unintentional act is done by mistake when the consequences of the act
areintentional; the mistake is only about the circumstances it is unintentional. For example,, if
Iarrest A taking him to be B, it is a mistake of fact. In this case, the consequence , that is arrest
isintentional but there is a mistake about the circumstances and I was to arrest B and A. So thearrest
of A is unintentional. An act is said to be done accidentally when it is unintentional inrespect of its
consequences also