CERTIFICATE COURSE ON LIABILITIES UNDER TORT

Types of Liabilities

In the first module we have learnt what is Tort and what are Liabilities. In this Module we shall
learn about the types of Liabilities. Let us find out :-

INTRODUCTION

Before going into the types of liabilities, we would like to give you a basic knowledge about the
law of torts.

A tort, in common jurisdiction, stands for the basic civil wrongs of that causes someone else to

Liabilities under Torts (Module 2)

The LAW Learners 1|Page
suffer loss or harm of any kind. Like any other wrong, the wrongdoer has to provide the victim
with a compensation, in order to reimburse his deeds, this compensation is, basically, termed as a
“liability”. This is also one of the differences between “torts” and “crime” .In case of the crime,
the wrongdoer gets a punishment. In case of torts, the wrongdoer is called a “tortfeasor”.
IntheusualEnglishlanguage,“liability”meansbeingfinanciallyand/orlegallyaccountabletosomeone
because of one’s responsibility where as in the law of torts ,it’s just a compensation for the
unliquidated damages / harm caused to the victim by the tortfeasor. The liabilities are of three
different types, namely:

Vicarious
Liability

Strict
Liability

Absolute
Liability

Vicarious Liability:In simple words, this liability is caused when one person( the tort feasor )
harms another person through someone else .

Strict Liability:When due to the negligence of the Tort feasor ,any dangerous thing escapes
from his/ her premises and harms anyone/ anything, then the liability is said to be strict liability.

Liabilities under Torts (Module 2)

The LAW Learners 2|Page
Absolute Liability: This liability is very similar to strict liability but here are few major
differences namely

1. The magnitude of the destruction: In the absolute liability, the destruction is mass destruction,
while in strict liability,this destruction is limited on extent.

2. Defence against the Tort: In the Absolute Liability, there is no defence whereas in strict
liability, the tortfeasor can set the defence( act of god being one of them) .

1.1. VICARIOUS LIABILITY

 Unlike other cases the case of vicarious liability is the only case where one person is
harming other person through someone else. The case of Vicarious Liability can be
divided into two different scenarios.
 First of them being the master servant relationship and secondly the Principle agent
relationship. One more case of it could have been the hirer- independent contractor
relationship but the independent contractor is usually not responsible for his actions.

1 .Master-servantrelationship:

When talking about a master - servant relationship, one can easily guess that a master is
vicariously responsible for the acts of the servant when such act was done in the course of
employment. When the servant is not under the course of employment and is held doing anything
unauthorized, the master cannot be held liable for the servant's deeds.

Features :

1. Under the course of employment i.e.; if the servant is doing something which was authorised
to him by the employer. The extension of the authorised work leading to something authorised is
also included.

Liabilities under Torts (Module 2)

The LAW Learners 3|Page
2. Authorised acts : There are times when the servant is asked to anything different from what
he is being paid for, in the first place. The servant is bound to accept and carry out all the
reasonable acts assigned to him, by his master.

Example : Suppose, Ravi is owner of "Ravi Packers and Movers", their main work is to help in
moving the belongings of their customers from city to another, as per the requirement. Ranjan is
a driver and hence, an servant/employee under Ravi. One day, due to Ranjan's negligence of not
applying the handbrake of the truck, there was a huge accident as the truck rolled down on the
main road. All this happened due to Ranjan's negligence but was it Vicarious liability? We'll see
two different conditions :

1. If Ranjan was on his way to deliver /move any customer's belongings to another city, the case
would be considered that of Vicarious liability as the accident took place during the course of
employment. This is a case of the Vicarious liability.

2. If Ranjan was out with the truck to get medicines for Ravi, on his request , it would still be a
case of vicarious liability. The reason being mentioned in the features of the master servant
relationship.

Reference case : Mersey Docks and Harbour Board vsCoggin

Griffith(Liverpool) 1946
2. Principal - agent relationship :The principal - agent relationship is very similar to the master
- servant relationship. The major difference being the authority of the agent to create any kind of
contractual relationship of the principal with any third party. The agent is not bound to one
principal, like a servant, the agent is free to have different principals at the same time. The agent
besides having the freedom mentioned earlier has certain duties towards the principal also:

1. The agent is supposed to act within the scope of authority.

Liabilities under Torts (Module 2)

The LAW Learners 4|Page
2. The agent has to keep aside all sorts of personal conflicts during the course of
action/employment.

The principal, on the other hand, is liable for the agent's tortious act if it was done during the
course of action or even if it was asked for, by the principal. Although the intentional torts
committed by the agent has nothing to do with the principal.

This legal or ethical relationship of trust between the parties can also be coined as "fiduciary
duty".

1.2. STRICT LIABILITY

When due to the the negligence of the tortfeasor any dangerous thing escapes from his/her
premises and harms any other person, in any way, the liability is said to be the strict liability.
This liability is basically, incurred for life or property without considering the intention of the
defendant. In order to be held as strictly liable, there are certain essential conditions.

Essentials :

1. Dangerous substance : The most important condition in the case of strict liability is keeping
any dangerous/hazardous substance in the premises. If the defendant is keeping any substance
which is dangerous which is most likely to have caused harm to the victim, then the defendant
might be strictly liable. Substances like explosives, fatal animals, electricity, etc. are usually
considered as the dangerous substances.

2. Escape : If this dangerous substance of the defendant escapes the premises if his property or in
any way becomes out of reach, then the defendant is said to be strictly liable.

Example :

Liabilities under Torts (Module 2)

The LAW Learners 5|Page
A, a scientist has various poisonous plants in his backyard. In case, B, A's neighbour's cattle
trespasses A's land and dies after eating the leaves of the poisonous plant, then A is not
responsible for this loss.

One more example can be the most common example of a man and his pet tiger. If Ravi is a man
who has a pet tiger and his tiger escapes someday due to unknown circumstances and kills
Prateek's cattle,then Ravi is strictly liable in this case.

3. Non-natural use : Non-natural use was one condition which was arisen from the "Rylands vs.
Fletcher case". This condition, in a way, clarifies how a natural substance can be dangerous. The
natural substance is said to be unnatural only if the natural substance is being used in a way that
increases it's danger.

For example, if there is a pipe of water to water the plant and it somehow is left open, resulting
in flooding the garden,then the usage will still be considered natural. On the other hand, using
electric wires in order to protect the property from the theives is totally "non - natural".

Defences :

1. Act of god : This is the most common defence that defendants use. The phrase and law is
basically imposed on any act which is beyond the human control.

For example, Gitanjali has a water tank in the backyard of her farmhouse which undergoes a
damage due to earthquake resulting in flooding her neighbour, Amy's House. Here, Gitanjali can
use "act of god" as a private defence.

2. Plaintiff's fault : In case the plaintiff is responsible for any harm, then the defendant is not
responsible at all. The example being same as the example given for the escape of dangerous
substance in the essentials of the strict liability.

Liabilities under Torts (Module 2)

The LAW Learners 6|Page
3. Volenti non fit injuria (VNFI) : A's son enters B's House and gets bitten by B's dog, then B is
not responsible for the act. A board stating "beware of dog" has already been left outside the
gate to keep the kids away.

Reference case: Reads vs. Lyons and Co.

Reference case : M. C. Mera vs. Shri Ram Foods and Fertiliser

Industries (1987)

1.3 ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

Absolute Liability is very similar to the strict Liability. The main difference being the defence of
mistake of fact which is available in strict liability and not in absolute liability. This liability is
also known as the liability "without fault". If an industry is engaged in some sort of dangerous
activity from which it is deriving commercial gain and that activities, somehow, leads to a mass
damage or harm, then, the liability is the absolute liability.

This liability was basically introduced by the Supreme Court of India after the infamous Bhopal
gas tragedy of 1984.

Reference case : 1.Rylands vs. Fletcher (1968) [Strict liability ]

Reference case: Castillo vs Case farms of Ohio

Liabilities under Torts (Module 2)

The LAW Learners 7|Page