………………………………..::::::::::::::::::::::::………………………………….

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::…………………………………

Strict liability and it’s comparison with absolute liability

SUBMITTED TO: MS GARGI BHADORIA

AMITY LAW SCHOOL(NOIDA)

SUBMITTED BY:

NEHA ROY

A032134722010

B.A.,LLB(2022-27) SECTION: A

ASTHA AGRAWAL

A032134722035

B.A.,LLB(2022-27) SECTION:A

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to our supervisor MS. GARGI BHADORIA
Ma’am for her valuable guidance, suggestions, and input in making of this research work.

We would also like to thank AMITY LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA for providing us a platform to
show our research work through this project.

Foremost, we would also like to thank our family and friends for supporting and helping us while
making this project and finishing in stipulated time.

- NEHA ROY
- ASTHA AGRAWAL

CONTENTS

SL. NO TOPICS PAGE NO.

 1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 STRICT LIABILITY 2

3 THE RULE OF STRICT 2

LIABILIY (THE RULE IN
RYLANDS VS. FLETCHER)

4 JUDGEMENT 3

5 ESSENTIALS OF STRICT 3-4

LIABILITY

6 EXCEPTION TO THE RULE 5-6

OF STRICT LIABILITY

7 A FEW CASES OUTSIDE 6-7

THE PERVIEW OF THE

DOCTRINE OF THE
STRICT LIABILITY

8 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 7
STRICT LIABILITY &
ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

9 CONCLUSION 8
10 REFERRENCE 9

INTRODUCTION

A tort is a civil wrong that causes harm to another person by violating a protected right. Court’s
impose liability for Torts to compensate an injured party for an act or an omission that causes
harm. One who commits a tort is a tortfeasor; the tortfeasor is liable rather than guilty. Tort
liability is meant to monetarily reimburse the tort victim for the harm caused them by the
tortfeasor. The idea of tort law is people are liable for the consequences of their actions. The
concept of foreseeability is key to the liability analysis in tort law. Liability can be ‘joint and
several, vicarious, proportional or strict.’

There are certain activities which are very dangerous that constant threat to person and property.
The law might prohibit them altogether. It may ask them to carry on for the sake of society but
only in accordance with statutory rules and provisions which lays down safety measures and
provides for sanction for non-compliance through the way of the doctrine of strict liability.
Absolute liability is nothing but applying of strict liability but without any exceptions. Generally
a person is liable for his own wrongful acts and one doesn’t incur any liability for acts done by
others.

Principles of strict liability and absolute liability are branch of tortious principle of no fault
liability. The rules of strict liability and absolute liability were led down in the case RYLANDS
V. FLETCHER & MC MEHETA V. UNION OF INDIA. In the following research work we will
discuss about what is strict and absolute liability. What are the essential elements to qualify
under one liability, how court defines it and what are the elements that comes under it.

STRICT LIABILITY

The definition of strict liability was first adopted in the late 1800. It arose from the principle of
incompetence which commonly applies to reckless conduct. Strict liability means that even if the
defendant was not negligent or rather, even if the defendant didn’t intentionally cause the harm
he was careful, he could still be made the liable under the rule.

Meaning of strict liability is a kind of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the
consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intend on the part
of the defendant. It’s basically a legal doctrine that holds a party (defendant) responsible for its
actions, without the plaintiff having to prove their negligence or fault on the part of defendant.

The principle of strict liability evolved in the case of RYLANDS VS. FLETCHER. In the year
of 1868 the principle of strict liability states that any person who keeps hazardous substance on
his premises will be held responsible if such substance escapes the premises causes any damages.

THE RULE OF STRICT LIABILIY

(THE RULE IN RYLANDS VS. FLETCHER)

Ryland v. Fletcher in 1868 the house of lords laid down the rule recognizing no fault liability.
The liability recognized was strict liability.

In RYLANDS V. FLETCHER the defendant got a reservoir constructed, through independent

constructors over his land for providing water to his mill. There were old disused shafts under
the sight of the reservoir which the contractors failed to observe and so didn’t block them. When
the water was filled in the reservoirs it bursts through the shafts and flooded the plaintiffs coal
mines in the adjoining land. The defendant didn’t know of the shafts and hadn’t been negligent
although the independent contractors had been. Even though the defendant had not been
negligent, he was held liable.

JUDGEMENT

The House Of Lords dismissed the supplication of the respondent and held him at liable for
everyone of the damages to Ryland’s mind. As per the rule said by this case if a man expedise
his territory an keeps there any hazardous thing, a thing which is probably going to insidiousness
on the off chance that it gets away. He will be at first site liable to the harm caused by the escape
despite the fact that he had not been careless in keeping it there. Regardless of their being no
blame or carelessness with respect to the litigant he was held at liable since he kept some unsafe
thing on his territory and the said hazardous thing has gotten away from his property and caused
harm.

ESSENTIALS OF STRICT LIABILITY

 NON-NATURAL USE OF LAND: To constitute a strict liability there should be a non-

natural use of land in the case of RYLANDS v. FLETCHER the water collected in the
reservoir was considered to be a no-natural use of the land. Storage of water for
domestic use is considered to be natural use, but storing water for the purpose of
energizing a mill was considered non-natural by the court. For example: supply of
cooking gas through a pipeline, electric wearing in a house etc. is considered to be the
natural use if land.
CASE: T.C.BALAKRISHNAN MENON V. T.R. SUBRAMANINAN
It was held at that the use of explosives in an open ground on a festival day was non-
natural use of land the reason was that the under the explosives act for making and
storing explosive substances even on such places and at such occasions, licenses have to
be obtained.
 DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE: This implies that only if anything that escaped from the
property was dangerous would the defendant be responsible for the damages. The term
dangerous means here that some kind of misery would possibly occur if it leaves the
defendant’s territory. In the above example it was the gathered water in the Fletcher’s
pool that was toxic. The law states that object such as petrol, electricity, bombs,
flagpoles, harmful smoke, vibration, yewtress, sewage and even rough wires can be
considered to be hazardous if escaped from the owner’s premises.
 ESCAPE: The thing that has caused damage or mischief must escape from the area
under the occupation and control of the defendant. This can be better explained by
bringing in two examples.
CASE 1: CROWHURST V. AMERSHAM BURIAL BOARD(1878)
 If the branches of the poisonous tree that is planted on the defendant land spreads out to
the neighboring plaintiff’s land this amounts to the escape of the dangerous poisonous
thing from the boundaries or control of the defendant and on to the plaintiffs land. Now,
the issues arises, if the cattle of the plaintiff nibbles on these leaves, then the defendant
will be held liable under the mentioned rule even when nothing was done intentionally
on his part.
CASE 2: READ V. LYONS AND COMPANY(1947)
The plaintiff worked as an employee in the defendant’s shell manufacturing company
while she was on duty within the premises of the company a shell being manufactured
their exploded due to which the plaintiff suffered injuries. A case was filed against the
defendant company but the court let off the defendant giving the verdict that strict
liability is not applicable here as the explosion took place within the defendant’s
premises. The concept of escape of a dangerous thing like the shell from the boundaries
of the defendant is missing here or also negligence on the part of the defendant couldn’t
be proved.
 MISCHIEF: To make the defendant liable under the doctrine of strict liability, the
plaintiff needs to prove that the defendant made non-natural use of his land and escape
of the dangerous thing cause mischief to him. The resultant damage needs to be shown
by the plaintiff after successfully proving that unnatural use of land was done by the
defendant.

CASE: CHARING CROSS ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. V. HYDROLIC POWER CO.(1914)

The defendant duty was to supply water for industrial work, but they were unable to keep
their mains charged with the minimum required pressure which laid to the bursting of the
pipeline at four different places resulting in heavy damage to the plaintiff which was proved
with evidence. The defendant were held liable inspite of no fault of there.

EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF STRICT LIABILITY

 DEFAULT OF THE CLAIMANT: If the damage is caused solely by the act or

default of the claimant himself he has no remedy. In POINTING V. NOAKES the
 claimants horse reached over the defendants boundary nibbled some poisonous some
poisonous tree there and died accordingly and it was held that the claimant could
recover nothing for the damage was due to the horse’s own intrusion and
alternatively there had been no escape of vegetation.
 ACT OF GOD: An act of god is that which is a direct, violent, sudden and
irresistible act of nature as could not, by any amount of ability, have been foreseen,
or if foreseen, couldn’t by any amount of human care and skill have been resisted.
Generally those acts which are occasioned by the elementary forces of nature, and
connected with the agency of man or other, cause will come under the category of
act of god. In the case of NICHOLS V. MARSLAND the defendant had created on
his land an artificial lake by damming a natural water body that year there was
extraordinarily heavy rainfall due to which the streams and lakes which were
sufficiently strong enough for normal rain gave away the water washed down and
the plaintiff’s four bridges washed away. The plaintiff brought an action against the
defendant for recovery of damage. It was held that the defendant was not liable
under the rule of strict liability as it was an act of god.
 CONSENT OF THE PLAINTIFF: In case of volenti non fit injuria where the
plaintiff has consented to the accumulation of the dangerous thing on the
defendant’s land the liability under the rule RYLANDS V. FLETCHER does not
arise. Such a consent is implied where the source of danger is for the common
benefit of both the plaintiff and defendant. In the case CARSTAIRS V. TAYLOR
the plaintiff hired groundfloor of a building from the defendant the upper floor of the
building was occupied by the defendant himself. Water stored on the upper floor
leaked without any negligence on the part of the defendant and injured the plaintiff’s
good on the ground floor as the water had been stored for the benefit of both the
plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant was not held liable.
 ACT OF THIRD PARTY: If the harm has been caused due to the act of a stranger
who is neither the defendant servant nor the defendant has any control over him the
defendant will not be liable under this rule. In the case of BOX V. JUBB the
overflow from the defendant’s reservoir was caused by the blocking of a drain by
the stranger the defendant was held not liable for that.
  STAUTORY AUTHORITY: An act done under the authority of statute is a defense
to an action for tort. The defense is also available when the action is under the rule
in RYLANDS V. FLETCHER. Statutory authority however cannot be pleaded as a
defense when there is negligence. In the case of GREEN V. CHELSEA
WATERWORKS COMPANY the defendant company had a statutory duty to
maintain continuous supply of water a main belonging to the company burst without
any negligence on it’s part. As a consequence of which the plaintiff’s premises was
flooded with water it was held that the company was not liable as the company was
engaged in performing a statutory duty.

A FEW CASES OUTSIDE THE PERVIEW OF THE DOCTRINE

OF THE STRICT LIABILITY
 JAILAXMI SALT WORKS V. STATE OF GUJARAT (1994): In this case the
defendant to manufacture salt from sea water constructed a dam on a large portion of
dam, due to negligent construction of the dam water overflowed from it and spread all
around and damaged a plaintiff’s factory. A suite was filed in the court but the court
held that the rule of strict liability will not apply here even though it’s a non-natural use
of land as the damage arose not due to the construction of the dam but due to improper
construction of the sea. It held the defendant guilty of breaching it’s public duty by
exposing the residence of that area to risk.
 CAMBRIDGE WATER CO. V. EASTERN COUNTIES LEATHER (1994): The
defendant had a tannery in operation at Shawston near Cambridge, they used PCE for
degreasing the pelts essential for the tanning process. Till 1976 the PCE was delivered
to defendants tannery in drums which led to regular spillage of PCE in limited amount.
Over the next few years this spillage amounted to 1000 gallons the PCE was soaked by
the concrete floor and got dissolved in the underground water. This contaminated water
used to flow to the plaintiff’s bore hole at his mill about 1.3 miles away from
defendant’s tannery due to this the plaintiff sued the defendant and wanted charges of
strict liability on apply on him but the court’s verdict was in the favor of the defendant.
The court upheld that for strict liability to apply the defendant must be aware that the
thing kept on his land will cause damage or mischief to the plaintiff’s on its escape this
is an essential element. However, in this case it could never be comprehended or
foreseen by any reasonable supervisor at the tannery that spillage of PCE at the tannery
would damage the water at a distance of 1.3 miles away and would lead to an
environmental hazard. It couldn’t be imagined that the PCE would dissolve in the
underground water by getting soaked through the concrete floor the defendant was not
aware that such a kind of damage could be caused by the PCE that he bought to use in
his tannery, therefore the rule of strict liability is not applicable here.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STRICT LIABILITY & ABSOLUTE

LIABILITY
i. The magnitude of destruction in absolute liability is mass destruction violence
strict liability this destruction is limited to an extent.
ii. In absolute liability there is no defense whereas in strict liability the tortfeasor
can set the defense.
iii. The doctrine of strict liability has some exceptions which can be taken into
considerations act of god, act of third party etc. are this exceptions and can be
applied if any of this is true in the case of the defendant whereas in the case of
absolute liability there is nothing like exception provided to the industries
involved in the activities of hazardous substance.
iv. In absolute liability the degree of damages depends on the greatness capacity and
financial capability of the company or the organization which cause the damage
whereas in strict liability compensation has to be paid as per the nature and
amount of damage caused.
v. According to the principle of Absolute Liability the element if escape is not
crucial in other words the rule of absolute liability should be applied to those
injured in the premise and person outside which is not in the case of strict
liability.

CONCLUSION
The rule of Strict Liability and Absolute Liability can be viewed as exception. A
man is made subject just when he is to be at fault in any case the guidelines
overseen these two principle is that a man can be made at risk even without his
fault this is known as the principle of no fault liability. Under these principles
the liable individuals might not have done the act but rather despite everything
he will be in charge of the harm caused because of the act. It can be concluded
that on account of strict liability there are a few exemptions where the
respondent wouldn’t be made liable be that on account of absolute liability no
exemptions id given to the respondent. The litigant will be influenced at risk
under the strict liability to administer regardless. Tort is a common wrong for
which the cure is a precedent based law activity for un liquidated harms and
which isn’t solely the rupture of an agreement or the break of a trust or other just
fair commitments.

REFERENCE
 https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-strict-liability-and-
absolute-liability.html#:~:text=Strict%20Liability%20implies%20the
%20legal,dangerous%20animals%20or%20using%20explosives
 https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-7666-strict-liability-and-
absolute-liability.html
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/concept-strict-liability-absolute-liability/
 https://lawcorner.in/difference-between-strict-liability-and-absolute-
liability/
 https://legalpaathshala.com/strict-liability-and-absolute-liability/
 https://www.ijlmh.com/paper/the-rule-of-strict-liability-and-absolute-
liability-in-indian-perspective/
 http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/2155/Strict-and-Absolute-
Liability.html
 https://wwjmrd.com/upload/strict--absolute-liability-with-special-
reference-to-india_1516274831.pdf