Case Name: Rylands v/s Fletcher - Citation: UKHL 1, L.R. 3 H.L. 330.

Judges: Lord Cairns and Lord Cranworth - Date of Judgement- July 17, 1868

Facts of the Case

The defendant, Rylands constructed a reservoir over his land for providing water to his mill via independent
contractors. There were some old disused shafts under the reservoir which the contractors failed to notice. As a result
these shafts remained unblocked. When the water was filled in the reservoir, it burst through the shafts and flooded
the plaintiff's coal mines on the neighbouring land. Though there was no negligence on the part of the defendant,
Rylands, the plaintiff, Fletcher sued the defendant for damages.

Issues:

1. Whether there was any nuisance or not?

2. Was the use of Defendant's land unreasonable and thus was he to be held liable for damages incurred by
the Plaintiff?

Judgement
Court of Liverpool
The Court of Liverpool gave its judgement in the favour of defendant holding that there was neither any trespass (as
the flooding was not direct and immediate) nor any nuisance (as the flooding was not a continuous event, it is a one
off event). Later, in December, 1864, via a Court order an arbitrator was appointed for the case. The arbitrator too
decided in favour of the defendant by stating that the defendant had no way of knowing about the mine shafts so he
could not be held liable. The arbitrators however, held the contractors liable for their negligence.

Court of Exchequer of Pleas

The case afterwards went to Exchequer of appeals for hearing.

The Court heard this case on two issues:

1. Whether the defendants were liable for the actions of the contractors
2. Whether the defendants were liable for the damage regardless of their lack of negligence

The Court unanimously decided that the defendant was not liable for the actions of contractors but have mixed views
on the second issue. While Pollock CB J. and Martin B J. held that the defendants were not liable as there was no
negligence on part of defendant, Bramwell B. J. held that the defendant was liable as the claimant had the right to
enjoy his land free of interference from water and it was the defendant's act (i.e. act of building reservoir) which
actually caused flooding of water on claimant's land and thus held the defendant liable for trespass and nuisance.

Court of Exchequer Chamber

Aggrieved by the decision of Court of Exchequer of Pleas, Fletcher appealed to the Exchequer Chamber composed
of six judges. The judges overturned the decision of Court of Exchequer of Pleas. It was in this Court where the rule
of Strict liability was first time propounded.

Blackburn J. discussed on behalf of all Judges and stated that:

We think that the rule of law is, that the person who for his own purpose brings on his lands 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 damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was
owing to the plaintiff's own default; or perhaps that the escape was the consequence of vis major, or the act of God;
but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient. [i]

Thus, the rule of strict liability was laid: that if a person bought any dangerous thing on his premises and if that thing
escapes and cause damage, then the person would be held liable for all the damage it has caused regardless of his
negligence, knowledge or intention. The Court however, also provided certain exceptions where this rule won't be
applied i.e. Act of God, Plaintiff's own default. But as none of these exceptions are there in Rylands v/s Fletcher
case, the Court held Ryland liable for the damage caused to Fletcher.

House of Lords
Aggrieved by the judgement of Court of Exchequer Chamber, Rylands went for appeal in House of Lords. The House
of Lords dismissed the appeal but went further to explain the rule of strict liability more granulously and put some
limitations on the rule of strict liability. The Court held that for the applicability of the rule of strict liability, it is
necessary that the land from which escape occurs must have been modified in a way which would be considered non
natural, unusual or inappropriate[ii]. Thus, "Non natural use of land" was made an essential for the applicability of rule
of strict liability.

Conclusion
The landmark judgment of Rylands V Fletcher played a vital role in law of torts. The rule of strict liability propounded
in this case has been instrumental in solving many disputes where the damage is caused without any negligence on
part of defendant. In this fast changing world where industrialization and technological advancements are taking
place rapidly, it is necessary that the owner who makes use of dangerous things shall be made onerous to bear the
responsibility of every damage which that thing may cause.
The rule of strict liability helps us in achieving that objective. It places an additional burden on the owner to bear the
responsibility of all catastrophes that may be caused by the dangerous thing he has bought. Moreover, it also
ensures that every owner exercise proper care in handling such dangerous properties.

References:

i. RK Bangia, Law of Torts 327 (Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, 2021)

ii. Rylands V Fletcher available at:
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110903100432998/ (last visited on February
10, 2022)
iii. Rickards V Lothiam, (1913) A.C. 263
iv. (1849) 2 Q.B. 281
v. (1876) 2 Ex. D.1
vi. (1871) L.R. 6 Ex. 217
vii. (1879) 4 Ex. D. 76
viii. (1894) 70 L.T. 547
ix. 7 C. B. 515.
x. 6 Bing. N.C.1.
xi. 3 M. & W. 220.
xii. Supra note 4
xiii. 15 C.B. (N.S.) 376
xiv. 4 B.&S. 229
xv. Pr.&Ag. 262
 Title: The Concept of Absolute Liability in M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India (A. I. R. 1987)

Introduction:

The evolution of tort law has witnessed landmark decisions that have significantly influenced legal
doctrines and principles. One such milestone is the case of M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India (1987), where
the Supreme Court of India introduced the concept of absolute liability. This assignment delves into the
background of the case, the principles underlying absolute liability, and its broader implications on tort
law and environmental protection.

Background of the Case:

In 1985, the Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industry in Delhi experienced a catastrophic gas leak of oleum,
resulting in several casualties and severe environmental damage. M. C. Mehta, a public interest litigator,
filed a petition seeking compensation for the victims and the application of strict liability principles to
hold the industry accountable for the disaster.

Evolution from Strict Liability to Absolute Liability:

The court, led by Justice Bhagwati, acknowledged the severity of the incident and upheld the application
of strict liability, as established in the famous Rylands v. Fletcher case. However, the court did not stop at
strict liability; it introduced the concept of absolute liability, emphasizing that certain hazardous activities
require a more stringent approach.

Key Principles of Absolute Liability:

1. No-Fault Principle: Absolute liability departs from the traditional fault-based approach by holding the
defendant responsible for harm caused by hazardous activities, regardless of negligence. This ensures that
victims receive compensation even if the defendant's actions were not negligent.
2. Inherently Dangerous Activities: Absolute liability is typically associated with activities that are
inherently hazardous, posing a significant risk to the public and the environment. The court emphasized
that industries engaged in such activities must be held strictly liable for any harm resulting from their
operations.
3. Deep Pockets Principle: Absolute liability places the onus on the party engaged in hazardous activities to
bear the financial burden of compensation. This principle ensures that entities undertaking risky
endeavors are adequately prepared to handle the consequences and compensate victims.
4. Public Interest and Environment Protection: The concept of absolute liability is rooted in the broader
principles of public interest and environmental protection. The court recognized the need for stringent
measures to deter industries from engaging in hazardous activities without proper precautions.

Implications and Significance:

The M. C. Mehta case and the introduction of absolute liability marked a watershed moment in Indian tort
law. It highlighted the judiciary's commitment to protecting public welfare and the environment, even at
the expense of established legal norms. The judgment reinforced the idea that industries engaging in
inherently dangerous activities must prioritize safety and take preventive measures to avoid harm.
Furthermore, the concept of absolute liability transcends the specific facts of the case and has had far-
reaching implications in subsequent legal developments. It has influenced environmental laws and
regulations, encouraging a proactive approach to prevent harm rather than merely reacting to it.

Conclusion:

The introduction of the concept of absolute liability in M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India is a testament to the
judiciary's adaptability to address evolving challenges. This decision not only expanded the scope of
liability but also underscored the judiciary's commitment to protecting public interest and the
environment. Absolute liability continues to be a crucial tool in environmental jurisprudence, serving as a
reminder to industries that engage in hazardous activities to prioritize safety and responsibility. The M. C.
Mehta case remains a pivotal precedent, shaping the landscape of tort law and environmental protection
in India.