All about strict liability under Tort Law.

Introduction

Strict liability is a legal threshold of liability that can apply to both criminal and civil cases. Strict
liability is a regulation that holds a person legally liable for the damage and loss caused by his or
her actions and omissions, regardless of fault (including fault in criminal law terms, typically the
presence of mens rea). Tort law (particularly product liability), corporate law, and criminal law
all use strict liability.
In Tort Law, the imposition of liability without a finding of fault is known as strict liability (such
as negligence or tortious intent). To put it in another way, the law acknowledges ‘no fault’
liability.1 The claimant only needs to show that the tort took place and that the defendant was at
fault. Situations that the law deems inherently harmful are subject to strict liability. By requiring
possible defendants to take all reasonable precautions, it discourages irresponsible activity and
unnecessary loss. It also has the effect of making court rulings in certain circumstances simpler
and faster. A tiger rehabilitation centre is an excellent example of strict liability. If a tiger escapes
and causes damage or harm to anyone, the owner is held liable, no matter how powerful the tiger
cages are.2
Where did strict liability originate?

The strict liability rule has its origins in nuisance, although it was probably regarded as a
separate principle by the majority of lawyers throughout most of the twentieth century. It now
appears to have returned to what are considered to be its origins: it is a “nuisance subspecies.”
To strengthen factory labour and safety standards in the nineteenth century, the demand for strict
liability arose. In the case of Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)3, the strict liability theory was
developed. The principle of strict liability was established in 1868, and it provides that “Any
individual who retains hazardous substances on his premises will be held accountable if such
substances escape and cause any damage.”

Landmark judgments of Strict liability-

1
R. K. Bangia, The Law of Torts 325(Allahabad law agency, 25 th Edition, 2020)
2
Franken v. City of Sioux Center 272 N.W.2d 422 (1978)
3
[1868] UKHL I, (1868) LR 3 HL 330
The House of Lords established the rule of ‘No fault’ liability in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher
in 1868. Even though the defendant did not cause the harm on purpose, he is nevertheless
accountable under thestrict liabilityrule.
Fact: The defendant owned a mill for which he built a reservoir to supply water, and the mill was
built over old coal shafts. The mill owner had no reason to think that these old diggings led to an
active colliery because he hired independent contractors and engineers to do the work. The shafts
that led to Fletcher’s mine were broken due to the independent contractor’s incompetence,
allowing water to enter the mine and costing him significant financial loss.
Blackburn J. held the mill owner to be liable, “The person who for his own purposes brings on
his land and collects, and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in
at his peril,and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damages which is the
natural consequence of its escape.”

Types of Strict liability:

1. Animals, owned or possessed
2. Abnormally dangerous Activities
3. Product liability

•Animals, owned or possessed -Wild animals can be ferocious and unpredictable, maintaining
them is thought to be a risky endeavour. By doing so, the keeper implicitly accepts the risk of
liability if the animals injure others. A wild animal is one that has not been domesticated and is
liable to cause personal injury if not restrained.
Illustration:- When A owns a wild animal, the animal escapes and causes harm to A’s neighbours.
As a result, A is held strictly accountable.
•Abnormally dangerous Activities-It necessitates the risk of substantial harm to another’s
person, land, or property, which cannot be avoided even with extreme caution; and it is not a
typical occurrence.
Illustration: The use of dynamite is widely regarded as a particularly hazardous activity. The
general consensus is that the size and severity of each given blast cannot be predicted.
Regardless of the level of caution used, blasting poses a significant risk of injury. As a result, the
person who engages in that behaviour has full responsibility for the outcomes.
•Product liability- With regard to products liability, a defendant is liable when the plaintiff
proves that the product is defective, regardless of the defendant's intent. It is irrelevant whether
the manufacturer or supplier exercised great care; if there is a defect in the product that causes
harm, he or she will be liable for it.

Essential of Strict liability4:

1) Someone must have brought something dangerous onto his property.

2) The thing brought or kept on a person’s land must be able to flee.
3) It must be an out-of-the-ordinary use of land.
 Hazardous or Dangerous substance: The substance will be regarded as dangerous if on
escape it can cause some mischief or harm to anyone. Even ordinary things that if on leaving the
premises can cause damage is dangerous.
 Escape: It is important to fix strict liability that the thing must be out of the premises and
control of the defendant. E.g.: If a person has a poisonous plant on his premises and it is reaching
out to another person’s land, the defendant cannot take the defence that the plant is originally is
on his land and only the branches are on others land. This will be regarded as an escape and if
someone consumes those poisonous leaves, the defendant, in that case, can be held liable.

4
R. K. Bangia , The Law of Torts 327(Allahabad law agency, 25 th Edition, 2020)
 In Eastern and South African Telegraph Co. Ltd. v. Capetown Tramways Co 5, the
plaintiff's submarine cable transmissions were disturbed by escape of electric current from the
defendant's tramways. It was found that the damage was due to the unusual sensitiveness of the
plaintiff's apparatus and such damage won't occur to a person carrying on ordinary business,
therefore, the defendant was not held liable for the escape.
 Non-natural use: To constitute strict liability it is necessary the dangerous thing kept on
the premises is used for a non-natural purpose. The storage of water in huge quantities for
energizing mills is non-natural use of water and therefore the defendant was held liable in
Ryland’s case.
 In Sochacki v. Sas, it has been held that having a fire place is natural use of land. Even if
there is escape of fire from the fire place and the plaintiff suffers harm, the defendants were not
held liable as there was no non-natural use of land6.
Exceptions to the rule of Strict liability

1. Plaintiff’s own default

2. Act of God
3. Consent of the plaintiff
4. Act of the third party
5. Statutory authority

 Plaintiff’s own default: Damage caused by the plaintiff's own escape can be deemed a
good defence. That is, if the plaintiff causes harm to the defendant's property through his own
incursion, he has no right to sue for the damages he has caused.
Ponting v. Noakes7(1894):
The claimant’s horse died after reaching over the defendant’s fence and eating some Yew tree
leaves. According to Rylands v Fletcher, the defendant was not liable because the Yew tree was
entirely within the defendant’s land and there was no escape. If the damage was caused by the

5
“Liability (Strict Liability, Absolute Liability and Vicarious Liability) Under Law of Tort,” Legalserviceindia.com, 2022available
at: https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4532-liability-strict-liability-absolute-liability-and-vicarious-liability-under-law-of-tort.html (l
ast visited May 10, 2022).
“Liability (Strict Liability, Absolute Liability and Vicarious Liability) Under Law of Tort,”
6

Legalserviceindia.com, 2022available at: (last visited May 10, 2022).

7
Ponting v. Noakes, (1894) 2 QB 281
unusual sensitivity of the plaintiff’s apparatus and would not cause any harm to a person
conducting ordinary business there, the plaintiff cannot recover anything. The defendant cannot
be held liable until and unless the dangerous thing is ‘escaped’ or the defendant’s land is used for
non-natural purposes by an ordinary person.
 Act of God:-An act of God, also known as a VisMajor, is an event that occurs solely as a
result of natural causes that could not have been avoided by foresight or caution.In the case of
strict liability, if the escape occurred unexpectedly and without human intervention, as a result of
some supernatural force, the defendant will not be held liable for the losses.
Nicholas v. Marsland8(1876)
This was successfully argued as a defence. In this case, the defendant constructed a dam across a
natural stream on his property to create artificial lakes. Unfortunately, that area received a lot of
rain that year. The rain was unusually heavy and memorable. The embankments of the artificial
lakes lost their way due to the rain. The plaintiff’s bridges were washed away by the rushing
water down the stream. The defendant was found not to be liable.
 Plaintiff’s consent:-In this scenario, unlike in the case of Volenti non fit injuria, there is
no shared benefit to the defendant and plaintiff.
Carstairs v. Taylor9(1871)
The defendant rented the ground level of a building to the plaintiff. Defendant lived on the
second floor. Water kept on the higher floor leaked without the defendant’s knowledge or
consent. The plaintiff’s possessions on the ground floor were ruined by the flood. The defendant
was not held accountable since the water had been stored for the benefit of both the plaintiff and
the defendant.
 Act of the third party-When losses are caused by a stranger’s act, the strict liability rule
does not apply. A stranger is someone who is not the defendant’s servant or under his authority.
However, if the defendant can foresee the stranger’s act, he or she must take reasonable
precautions to avoid the damages.
In the case of Box v.Jubb (1879) ;
The defendant’s reservoir flooded due to a blockage in the drains caused by outsiders in the case
of Box v Jubb. As a result, the court denied the defendant’s liability.

8
Nicholas v. Marsland [(1876) 2 ExD 1]
9
Carstairs v. Taylor(1871) LR 6 Ex 217
 Statutory authority: Statutory conduct is a powerful defence to a tort claim. However,
the defendant who is acting under statutory authority cannot plead the defence if there is any
form of carelessness on his or her side.
Green v. Waterworks co.10 (1894)
The defendant corporation had a statutory duty to ensure that water was available at all times.
The plaintiff’s facilities were flooded with water after the main belonging to the company
ruptured due to the company’s negligence. The corporation was found to be immune from
liability since it was performing a statutory responsibility.
Strict liability and absolute liability

The rule of absolute liability is equivalent to the strict liability rule except that it excludes
defences. It was demonstrated in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher that strict liability can be
avoided as well. There were numerous exceptions that wrongdoers may take advantage of in
order to save face. While absolute liability places liability squarely on the shoulders of the
wrongdoer, there is no way to escape it.
For example, driving without a license entails complete responsibility; there is no way out.
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India is a milestone case in India for absolute liability, while Rylands
v.Fletcher is a landmark case in India for strict liability. Liability within and outside premise is
not required in absolute liability escape, but it is required in strict liability escape. The primary
distinction between strict and absolute liability is this.
Conclusion:

There are a variety of circumstances in which a person may be held accountable for causing
harm even if he was not negligent in doing so or if there was no mens rea involved. To put it
another way, the law acknowledges “no-fault responsibility” on occasions.
The precedent-setting case of Rylands v. Fletcher demonstrates this liability. There are some
exceptions to the strict responsibility rule, such as an act of God, plaintiff’s assent, or a third
party’s default.

10
Green vs. Chelsea Waterworks Co., (1894) 70 L.T. 547
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
 R. K. Bangia, The law of Torts, Allahabad law agency 25thEdition, 2020
 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal– The Law of Torts 26th Edition, Lexis Nexis, Gurgaon
 Avtar Singh: P.S.A. Pillai’s Law of Torts, Eastern book company, Lucknow
 J. N. Pandey:Law of Torts,Central Law Publications, Allahabad