Dr.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL

LAWUNIVERSITY

2019-2020

PROJECT OF TORTS
STRICT LIABILITY AND ABSOLUTE LIABILTY

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

Shourya Garg Ms. ANKITA YADAV
ENROLL NO. 190101139 ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
BA LLB (Hons) LAW DEPARTMENT
SEM- 2nd RML NLU LKO
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank to my professor Ms. Ankita Yadav who gave me the golden opportunity

to do this wonderful project of Torts on “STRICT LIABILTY AND ABSOLUTE

LIABILITY”, who also helped me in completing my project. Her able guidance and useful

suggestions helped me in completing the project. I came to know about so many new things I

am really thankful to them. It has been an enlightening experience working on this project.

Secondly I would also like to thanks my parents and friends who helped me a lot in finalizing

this project within time frame.

 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this project work entitled CYBER TORT has been prepared by me is an

original work submitted to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow.

This project work has been done under the guidance of Prof. Ankita Yadav, Professor of Law

and this project work has been submitted in the partial fulfilment of the requirement for the

award of the degree of BA.LLB (Hons.). The results embodied in this thesis have not been

submitted to any other university or institute for the award of any degree or any diploma.

Shourya Garg
INTRODUCTION

STRICT LIABILITY
Strict liability is a legal doctrine has its origin in the case of Rylands v Fletcher 1 that holds a
party responsible for their actions or products, without the plaintiff having to prove
negligence or fault. When someone partakes in ultra hazardous activities such as keeping
wild animals, using explosives, or making defective products, then they may be held liable if
someone else is injured.

Even if the defendant took necessary precautions and followed safety requirements, strict
liability crimes are unique in that they would still hold the defendant responsible. Due to the
nature of the activity, the deendant should be able to foresee that a person could be harmed by
it.

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
The concept of absolute liability evolved in India after the case of M.C Mehta vs Union of
India2 famously known as Oleum Gas Leak case. This is one of the historic cases in the
Indian Judiciary. The case of M.C Mehta is based on the principle of strict liability but with
no exception was given and the individual is made absolutely liable for his acts.  It is based
under this principle that the defendant won’t be allowed to plead defence if he/she was at
fault as it was laid down in Ryland vs. Fletcher case. After the Bhopal gas leak case many
people lost their lives and are suffering from some of the fatal diseases through the generation
and because of this there was an urgent need to develop a rule under strict liability which had
no exceptions available to the defendant to escape from the liability.

1
Rylands v Fletcher, (1868) LR 3 HL 330
2
AIR 1987 SC 965
RYLANDS V FLETCHER
FACTS

The defendant had a mill near Ainsworth in Lancashire wanted to improve its water supply.
They constructed a reservoir by employing reputed engineers to do it. when the reservoir was
filled, water flowed down the plaintiff’s neighbouring coal mine casing damage. The
engineers were independent contractors. There was some negligence on their part in properly
sealing disused mine shafts which they had come across during the construction of the
reservoir and it was through these shaft that the water flooded to the plaintiff’s mine.

The defendant were in no way was negligent in hiring competent engineers to do the job and
the engineer were independent contractors; the defendant could not be made vicariously
liable for their negligence.

JUDGMENT

The Court of Exchequer dismissed the claim as showing no cause of action. After that an
appeal was made to the Court of Exchequer chamber. The judgement of Blackburn, J, of that
court which laid down a new basis of liability was approved by the House of Lords.

The basis of strict liability was laid down by Blackburn, J, in these words:

The rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and
collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his
perils; and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the
natural consequences of its escape.

Exception to the rule in Rylands v Fletcher

 Act of god (vis major)

 Wrongful act of a third party
 Plaintiff’s own default
 Artificial work maintained for the common benefit of plaintiff and defendant, or with
the consent of the plaintiff
 When it is the consequence of an act done under the authority of a statute

The essential elements of Strict Liability are-

  Dangerous Thing– As per the rules laid down, the liability of escape of a thing from
an individual’s land will arise only when the thing which is collected is a dangerous
thing that is a thing which likely causes damage or injury to other people in person or
their property on its escape. In various torts cases which have happened all over the
world, the doctrine of strict liability has held a large body of water, gas, electricity,
vibrations, sewage, flag-pole, explosives, noxious fumes, rusty wires etc are certain
things which come under the ambit of dangerous things.

 Escape– Anything which has caused damage or mischief should have escaped from
the area which was under the control of the defendant to come under the ambit of
absolute liability. Like it happened in the case of Read v Lyons and Co.3where the
plaintiff was working as an employee in the defendant’s company which was engaged
in manufacturing shells. The accident happened while she was on her duty that day
within the company’s premise. It happened when a piece which was being
manufactured there exploded and due to which the plaintiff suffered harm. After this
incident and a case was filed against the defendant’s company but the court eventually
let go the defendant and gave the verdict that strict liability is not applicable here in
this particular case. This was declared by the court because the explosion that took
place was within the defendant’s premises and not outside. And the concept says that
it should have escaped the dangerous thing like shell here from the boundaries of the
defendant premise which didn’t happen and was missing over here. So, the negligence
on the part of the defendant could not be proved in the court.
 Non-natural use of land– Water collected on land for domestic purposes does not
amount to non-natural use of land but if one is storing it in large quantities like in a
reservoir as it was the case in Ryland v Fletcher then it amounts to non-natural use of
land. The difference between natural and non-natural use of land by keeping in mind
the surrounding social conditions. As the growing of trees and plants on land is
considered as a natural use of land but if one starts growing trees which are poisonous
in nature then it will be considered as non-natural use of land. If an issue arises
between the defendant and the plaintiff even though the defendant is using the land
naturally, the court will not hold the defendant liable for his conduct.
 Mischief- To make the person liable under this principle, the plaintiff at first needs to
show that the defendant had done the non-natural use of land and escaped the
dangerous thing which he has on his land which resulted in the injury further. In the

3
Read v J Lyons and Co, (1947) AC 156 (HL).
 case of Charing Cross Electric Supply Co. v Hydraulic Power Co, 4 the defendant
was assigned to supply water for industrial works. But he was unable to keep their
mains charged with a minimum pressure that was required which led to the bursting
of the pipeline at different places. This resulted in causing heavy damage to the
plaintiff which was proved in the court of law. The defendants were held liable in
spite of this that they were not at fault. These are the few rules where this doctrine is
applied.

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
The rule laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India is much wider with respect to
the rules laid down the House of Lords in the case of Ryland v Fletcher. It was propounded
by the Supreme Court that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity and if any harm results to anybody on account of the accident in
operation,  the enterprise would be held strictly and absolutely liable to compensate to all
those who are affected by the accident.

Is Strict Liability and Absolute Liability the Same Thing?

No, strict liability and absolute liability are not the same things and are different. As in strict
liability, the defendant has a chance to escape the liability after causing the damage and
injury whereas under absolute liability this is not the case as the defendant is held absolutely
liable for his acts.  This means that even if both the rules come up for giving punishments to
the wrongdoer who has caused injury and by dealing with hazardous substance without
proper care and caution but they would differ in cases of providing relaxation.

As in strict liability, there are some defences which are available to the wrong-doer but in of
absolute liability, there are no defences available and given to the defendant. It was even
declared by the courts that absolute liability could even be upheld in case of single death and
there is no need for any mass destruction or pollution done to the environment.

4
(1913) 3 KB 442
By analyzing the need to modify the 19th century rule of strict liability the apex court in M.C
Mehta v Union5 of India stated that “Moreover that the principle which was established in
Ryland v Fletcher’s case cannot be applied in the modern world because the rule was laid
down in the old world as compared to the one laid down in the modern world which is period
of industrial revolution and this principle is two centuries old which can’t be adopted without
the modifications being made into it. The main aim is to limit the scope of the rule and bring
it at the same level as the modern theory.

 Absolute liability is applicable only to hazardous or inherently dangerous activities

 Escape of dangerous thing is not necessary
 Rule of Absolute Liability has no exception
 New rule is applicable to natural use of land also

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY = (STRICT LIABILITY- EXCEPTIONS)

The scope of the rule of absolute liability is very wide in all its aspects when compared with
the old rule. As it does not have any exception laid under it in the new rule. Not only it covers
public negligence or fault but it also covers even the personal injuries caused due to the
misconduct of the neighbour. Now it covers not only the one who occupies the land but also
makes people liable who is not the owner of the land. Absolute Liability has been brought up
in the case of M.C Mehta v Union of India also this is one of the landmark judgment in
India’s legal history. The rule which was laid down after this case was that any enterprise
which is engaged in any kind of hazardous or inherently dangerous material which if there
might result in any kind of harm then the enterprise would be absolutely liable to compensate
to all the people who are affected by the same as it also happened in Bhopal Gas Tragedy
case.

The facts of the case go on like this that in the city of Delhi in 1985, there was 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

Indian Council for Environmental Legal action v Union of India6

5
(1987) 1 SCC 395
6
AIR 1996 SC 1446
The supreme court of India imposed the principle of mc Mehta case and held 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.”

CONCLUSION

The rule of absolute liability is similar to the strict liability evolved in rylands v Fletcher with
some modification by Indian Supreme Court. The old rule being with many exceptions was
not capable to make any individual strictly liable for his negligence. Therefore it was
essential to make harder rules with same purpose.