STRICT LIABILITY
AND ABSOLUTE
LIABILITY
Presented by –
Under
Guidance
of Kritika Vyas
Dr. Sujata
Arya
Table of 5. Absolute Liability
contents!
6. Scope of Rule of
Absolute Liability
1. Strict Liability
2. Origin and
7. Other Important
Principle of Strict Cases
Liability
8. Distinction between
3. Essentials of Strict Strict and Absolute
Liabilities
Liability
4. Exceptions of
Strict Liability
I. STRICT LIABILITY
[Link]
[Link]/
watch?v=f6TU
iejBILE
A person may be liable for
harm even though they
are not negligent, or had
no intention for the same.
Also called
'No fault'
liability.
Rylands v.
Fletcher
Rylands v.
Fletcher
II. Origin of Strict Liability
Rylands v. Fletcher
((1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330)
The Defendant got reservoir
constructed for his mill, he didn’t
see shafts under the site and so did
not block it.
When water filled in the reservoir,
it burst through the shafts and
flooded the plaintiff's coal mines.
.
Even though the
defendant had not
been negligent, he
was held liable.
—Someone Famous
[Link]
v=Nj9qH9jjAlM
III. Principle of Strict Liability
If a person brings on their
land and keeps there any
dangerous thing, i.e., a
thing which is likely to do
mischief if it escapes, and
caused damage.
.
Who will have
burden of proof ?
[Link]
watch?v=bzhtFqh2Zwk
IV. Essentials
of Strict Non-natural use
Liability of land.
Some dangerous
The thing kept
thing must have
on land must
been brought on
have escaped.
land.
1. Dangerous thing
A thing that escape
and causes
considerable damage.
e.g., gases,
liquids, animals.
2. Non-natural
use of land
It must be some special
use bringing with it
increased danger to
others.
Not merely by the
ordinary use of land or
for the general benefit of
community.
Sochacki v. Sas
Facts: B, was a lodger in A’s house, lit a
fire in his room and went out. While he
was out, his room caught fire. It spread
and damaged A’s property.
Held: B was not liable - use of the fire
was an ordinary, natural, proper and
everyday use.
[(1947) 1 All
E.R. 344 ]
3. Escape
The thing
escapes the
premises.
Read v. J. Lyons & Co. Ltd.
Facts: Appellant was Inspector of
Ammunition. He was injured by the
explosion while he was on respondent's
premises in the performance of the
duties.
Held : NO LIABLE – was not injured not
outside, thus no escape thereby.
[(1946) 2
All E.R.
471 ]
4. EXCEPTIONS TO (c) Plaintiff's
THE RULE OF STRICT
consent/ benefit
LIABILITY
(a) Act of God (d) Plaintiff's own
(Vis Majeur)
default
(b) Act of third (e)Statutory
party Authority
1. Act of God :
Happening of event
which was due to the
force of nature and
was unforeseen,
beyond the control of
the defendant and
extraordinary.
Nichols v. Marshland
Facts: The defendant had artifical lakes
formed. Due to unnatural rainfall “greater
and more violent than any within the
memory of a witness” artificial
embankments broke down and carried
away four bridges of plaintiff.
Held : Not liable – beyond control of
defendant.
[(1876) 2 Ex.
D. 1 ]
2. Act of Third Party:
Where Escape is
caused by the act
of the third party
over whom the
defendant has no
control.
Richards V. Lothian
Facts: A stranger deliberately
locked up the waste pipe of a lavatory
fixed in the premises of D. This caused
flooding the premises of P. P sued D.
Held: The defendant not liable- act
was due to a stranger.
[(1913) A.C.
263 ]
3. Plaintiff's Consent:
If source of danger
is for the common
benefit of both the
plaintiff and the
defendant or the
Plaintiff gave
consent.
Carstairs v. Taylor
Facts: T, the landlord, rented his upper
story to the plaintiff. T, for the benefit of
both maintained a rain water box. Some
rats bit the box and water escaped,
damaging the goods of the plaintiff.
Held : not liable – common benefit and
plaintiff's consent.
[(1871) L.R. 6
Ex. 217 ]
4. Plaintiff's own fault:
Injury caused to
the plaintiff is
due to their own
fault.
Ponting v Noakes
Facts: The plaintiff’s horse ate
some poisonous leaves from the
defendant’s tree after which he
died.
Held : Not liable - wrongful
intrusion by plaintiff’s horse.
[(1849) 2 Q.B.
281]
5. Statutory Authority:
When the defendant is
authorised or
required under the
law to accumulate,
keep or collect the
dangerous things.
Green V. Cheisea Water Works
Company
Facts: The Parliament had authorised
the company to lay the main pipes.
The pipes burst flooding the
premises of P.
Held : Company was not liable.
[(1894) 70 L.T.
547]
APPLICABILITY OF STRICT LIABILITY IN
INDIA
Strict liability is applicable in
India, however, there been some
deviation i.e., in the extension and
the limitation of its scope.
Oleum leak disaster case(1985)-
liability was made further stringent
by the introduction of the Rule of
Absolute Liability.
.
V. ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
If a person is
engaged in some
dangerous activity
which for commercial
gain then they owe
some duty of care to
the society if the
escape of dangerous
thing could cause
damage.
M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (or Sriram
Industries Case) [A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1086]
Facts: Oleum gas leaked from one
of the units of Shriram Foods
and Fertilizers Industries. It
resulted into death of one of
the advocate and caused serious
injuries to several others.
.
Held (SC): The rule of strict
liability is inadequate to deal such
serious problems,
“Law has to grow in order to satisfy the needs
of the fast changing society and keep abreast
with the economic developments, taking place
in this country Law cannot allow our judicial
thinking to be constrained by reference of the
law as it prevails in England or for the
matter of that in any other foreign legal
order.”
.
The bases of the new rule:
(1) If enterprise carry on an hazardous or
inherently dangerous activity, the enterprise
will absorb the cost of any accident
(including indemnification of all those who
suffer harm in the accident) arising out of
it.
(2) The enterprise alone has resource to
discover and guard against hazards or
dangers.
.
VII. Scope of Rule of Absolute Liability
After the Oleum Gas Leak case the act
of The Public Liability Insurance
Act, 1991 was introduced with
purpose of providing immediate relief
to people who are victims of the
accident.
The agenda - create a public
liability insurance fund which will
be used for compensating the
victims.
.
The Union Carbide
Gas Leak | A Short
Documentary |
Fascinating Horror
[Link]
[Link]/watch?v
=2O7GjYAV4Ro
Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of
India (Bhopal Gas Tragedy)
Facts: In December 1984, toxic gases
were leaked from the Union Carbide
Corporation India Ltd. And about 2660
people died, several thousand
suffered serious injuries but also in
cases got transferred to their next
generation.
Held: Absolute liability - defendant
liable to pay US $470 Million
dollars.
.
Vizag Gas Leak, 2020
Facts : In May, 2020, a polymer plant
leaked Styrene Gas, killing 11 people
and affecting thousands of others.
The leak was a result of the failure
of the company to meet the
compliances of entailed in
the ‘Manufacture, Storage and Import
of Hazardous Chemical Rules. 1989’,
which for preventing onsite and
offsite damages to the plant and its
surroundings.
.
Judgment:
The NGT, directed the concerned
company to pay damages Rs. 50
Crores, the company is only
strictly liable for the damage
and principle of ‘Polluter pays
Principle’ was applied for
environmental damages.
.
8. DISTINCTION
BETWEEN STRICT AND
ABSOLUTE LIABILITIES
ABSOLUTE LIABILITY =
(STRICT LIABILITY-
EXCEPTIONS)
What are other
differences?
STRICT LIABILITY ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
● In case of strict
● In case of absolute
liability, what is
liability it is
brought on land is
inherently
dangerous, but not
dangerous, and
inherently
hence no exceptions
dangerous.
admitted.
● In strict
● In absolute
liability, any
liability, only an
person can be made
enterprise can be
liable.
made liable.
STRICT LIABILITY ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
● Absolute liability is
● In case of strict available also to the
persons on the
liability, the
premises.
thing must escape.
Hence, there is no ● In M. C. Mehta it was
liability in observed that in such
respect of persons cases exemplary damages
on the premises. may be awarded and that
the more prosperous or
affluent the
● In strict liability
enterprise, the more
ordinary damages damages should be
are awarded. awarded.
QUIZ TIME!!
1. ‘No-fault liability’ means
a) liability for damage caused through
negligence
b) liability for damage caused through fault.
c) absolute liability even without any
negligence or fault.
d) freedom from liability
.
2. Which of the following is an accurate
explanation of a strict liability offence?
a) An offence which does not require proof of fault
b) An offence which does not require proof of mens
rea
c) An offence which does not require proof of actus
reus
d) An offence which does not require proof of
mens rea in respect of the
element of actus reus
.
3. Which case led to the introduction of
principle of Absolute liability?
a) Donogue v. Stevenson
b) c and d
c) Bhopal gas leak, 1984
d) MC Mehta v. Shri Ram Foods and Fertilizers
Limited
.
Thank You!
Post Bhopal
● Environment Protection
Act, 1986 amended – CG
powers to enter,
inspect, close down
facilities
● Factories Act, 1987
and Hazardous Wastes
Act, 1989 –
Responsibilities on
industries
● Public Liability
Insurance Act, 1991
PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE ACT, 1991
● Section 13 of the Rio Declaration
● Owners need to pay for an insurance policy relating
to hazardous substances after one year one starting
work (Liability Insurance)
● Object – Immediate Assistance to those affected by
the accident, Unwillingness to compensate
● Defines accident, Dealing with hazardous
substances, Owner, Employee, Injury etc.
● Insurance contract to be extended from time to time
before expiration
● Environmental Assistance fund by CG
● Collectors responsibilities
● Penalties
● Criticism – Amount of Compensation, Efficient
enforcement
P & O Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State –
State Liability
Horse carriage, Govt negligence
State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati – Collectors driver
● Jai Laxmi Salt Works P Ltd. v. State of
Gujarat, 1994 4 SCC 1
● Facts – Government builds dam –
Opposition by Company – Rain and flooding
of factory – case filed
● Judgement – Trial Court and High Court
hold no negligence or strict liability,
Law of limitation applied
● Supreme Court – Applies Negligence, State
Action resulting in injury still a tort,
Limitation from date of Injury
.
Polluter pays
● Rural Indian Council for Enviro-legal
Action v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC
1446
● Facts – Bichhri Village, Udaipur
Rajasthan – multiple factories =,
untreated hazardous waste, pollution and
health hazard – Case filed by Env
Association
● Judgment – Court applies Polluter Pays
Principle (Principle 16 of the Rio
Summit, 1992)- Penalty + Interest + costs
