HIMACHAL PRADESH NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY, SHIMLA

2018-2019

Assignment Report on Law of Torts

Course Code-LLB102

Topic-Principle of ‘Strict Liability’: Its

distinction with Absolute Liability

Submitted by: Submitted to:

Naman Mishra Dr. Ruchi Gupta
ROLL No.-1020181936 (ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW)

(B.A.LL.B-1st SEMESTER)
Page | 1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is not conceivable to set up an undertaking report without the help and consolation of other
individuals. This is positively no exemption. I am utilizing this chance to express my
appreciation to everybody who upheld me over the span of this assignment. I am grateful for
their aspiring guidance, importantly valuable feedbacks and friendly advice amid my assignment.
I am truly appreciative to them for sharing their honest and illuminating views on various issue
identified with the venture. I also want to express my exceptional appreciation to Dr. Ruchi
Gupta, who gave me the brilliant chance to do this incredible undertaking, which likewise
helped me in completing a great deal of exploration and I came to think about such a large
number of new things for which I am obligated to her from the core of my heart. I additionally
recognize with a profound feeling of respect, my appreciation towards my parents and member
of my family, in view of whom I have figured out how to finish this task on time and who have
continuously upheld me ethically. Finally, my appreciation goes to the majority of my
companions who specifically or on the other hand in a roundabout way helped me to finish this
task. Any oversight in this brief acknowledgement does not mean absence of appreciation.

-NAMAN MISHRA

Page | 2
 INDEX

SR.NO CONTENTS PAGE

. NO.
1 Introduction-Rule of Strict Liability 4
2 Essentials for Strict Liability 5-7
3 Exceptions to Strict Liability 8-10
4 Rule of Absolute Liability 10-11
5 Distinction between Strict and Absolute liability 12
6 Conclusion 13
7 References 14

Page | 3
 INTRODUCTION –RULE OF STRICT LIABILITY
Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes a person or company responsible for their actions or
products which cause damages regardless of any negligence or fault on their part. A plaintiff
filing a personal injury lawsuit under a strict liability law does not need to show intentional or
negligent conduct, only that the defendant's action triggered strict liability and that the plaintiff
suffered harm. Whether or not a tort action is considered strict liability and what damages are
appropriate will depend on your state law.

There are situation when a person may be liable for some harm even though he is not negligent
in causing the same, or there is no intention to cause the harm, or sometimes he may even have
made some positive efforts to avert the same. This is called NO FAULT LIABILITY.

 THE RULE OF STRICT LIABILITY

Under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher1, a person who allows a dangerous element on their land
which, if it escapes and damages a neighbour, is liable on a strict liability basis - it is not
necessary to prove negligence on the part of the landowner from which has escaped the
dangerous substance.

FACTS OF THE CASE -In the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, the defendant got a reservoir
constructed through independent contractor, over his land for providing water to his mill. There
was old disused shafts under the reservoir, which the contractor failed to observe so did not
block them. When water was filled in reservoir, it burst through the shaft and flooded the
plaintiff coal mines on the adjoining land. The defendant did not know of the shafts and had not
been negligent although the independent contractor had been. Even though the defendant had not
been negligent he was held liable.

HELD-In the case of Rylands v. Fletcher Justice Blackburn said, “We think that the true rule
of law is, that 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 damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff’s default, or
1
Rylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1

Page | 4
perhaps that the escape was the consequence of vis major but as nothing of this sort exists here
it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient2.”

ESSENTIALS FOR STRICT LIABILITY

There are some essential conditions which should be fulfilled to categorize a liability under the
head of strict liability. The essentials are as follows:

 Some dangerous thing must have been brought by a person.

 The thing thus brought or kept by a person on his land must escape.
 There must be non- natural use of land.

1) DANGEROUS THINGS:

The defendant will be held strictly liable only if a “dangerous” thing escapes from his premises.

For the purpose of imposing strict liability, a dangerous thing can be defined as any substance
which will cause some mischief or harm if it escapes. In case of Rylands v. Fletcher the thing s
collected was a large hold of water. This rule has also been applied to gas, electricity, vibration,
trees, sewage, explosives etc.

2) ESCAPE

One more essential condition to make the defendant strictly liable is that the material should
escape from the premises and shouldn’t be within the reach of the defendant after its escape.

For example, the defendant has some poisonous plant on his property. Leaves from the plant
enter the property of the plaintiff and is eaten by his cattle, which as a result die. The defendant
will be liable for the loss. But on the other hand, if the cattle belonging to the plaintiff enter the
2
http://www.duhaime.org

Page | 5
premises of the defendant and eats the poisonous leaves and die, the defendant would not be
liable. In the judicial pronouncement of Reads v. Lyons & Co.3 it was held that if there is no
escape, the defendant cannot be held liable.

3) NON-NATURAL USE OF LAND

To constitute a strict liability, there should be a non-natural use of the land. In the case
of Rylands v. Fletcher, the water collected in the reservoir was considered to be a non-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. When the term
“non-natural” is to be considered, it should be kept in mind that there must be some special use
which increases the danger to others. Supply of cooking gas through the pipeline, electric wiring
in a house, etc. is considered to be the natural use of land. For instance, if the defendant grows a
non-poisonous tree on his land and its overhung branch fell on a passerby then the defendant will
not be liable because growing non-poisonous tree on ones land is natural use of land. This was
the case of NOBEL v.Harrison4

These three condition needs to be satisfied simultaneously to constitute a strict liability.

 ACT DONE BY AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

Generally, an employer is not liable for the wrongful act done by an independent contractor.
However, it is no defense to the application of rule of strict liability that the act causing damage
had been done by an independent contractor. In Rylands v. Fletcher itself, the defendant was held
liable even though he had got the job done from an independent contractor.

T.C.BALAKRISHAAN MENON V. T.R. SUBRAMANIAM5

3
[1947] AC 156 House of Lords -shell exploded in factory while plaintiff was on work, but court let off the
defendant saying that strict liability is not applicable here because there was no escape of dangerous thing.

4
[1926] 2 KB 332
5
AIR 1968 Ker 151

Page | 6
One of the questions before Kerala High Court was whether the applicant who had engaged an
Independent contractor to attend the exhibition of fireworks would be liable.

It was held that the explosive is an extra hazardous object and attracts the application of rule of
Rylands v. Fletcher. The person using such objects is liable even for the negligence of their
independent contractor

FACTS OF THE CASE –In case of T.C.Balakrishaan v. T.R.Subramaniam, the defendant send
an independent contractor to attend the exhibition of fireworks where, an explosive made out of a
coconut shell (minnal gundu) filled with explosive substance, instead of rising into the sky and
exploding there, ran at a tangent, fell amidst the crowd and exploded, causing serious injuries to
the plaintiff.

HELD-" The minnal gundu is an explosive and is therefore an "extra hazardous" object and
persons who use such an object, which in its very nature, involve special danger to others, must
be liable for the negligence of the heir independent contractor. The duty to keep such a
substance without causing injury to others is non dele gable duty: the appellants could not have
escaped liability form the breach of such a duty by engaging an independent contractor.”6

EXCEPTIONS TO STRICT LIABILTY

The following exceptions to the rule of Strict Liability have been recognized in Rylands v.
Fletcher case and some later case:

i. Default of the claimant

ii. Act of God(vis major)
iii. Statutory Authority
iv. Consent of the claimant
v. Act of third party

6
www.brainscape.com

Page | 7
DEFAULT OF THE CLAIMANT

If the damage is solely by the act or default of the claimant himself, he has no remedy. In
Rylands v. Fletcher itself, this was noticed as a defense. If a person knows that there is a danger
of his mine being flooded by his neighbor’s operations on adjacent land, and courts the danger
by doing some act which renders the flooding probable, he cannot complain 7.So, too, in Pointing
v. Noakes8, the claimant’s horse reached over the defendant’s boundary, nibbled 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 the
vegetation.9

ACT OF GOD (VIS MAJOR)

Where the escape is caused directly by natural causes without human intervention in,
“circumstances which no human foresight can provide against and of which human prudence is
not bound to recognize by possibility”, the defense of act of God applies. This was recognized by
Blackburn J in Rylands v Fletcher itself and was applied in Nicholas v Marshland.10In this case
the defendant for many years had been in possession of some artificial ornamental lakes formed
by damming up a natural stream. An extraordinary rainfall, “greater and more violent than any
within the memory of witnesses” broke down the artificial embankments and the rush of
escaping water carried away four bridges in respect of which damage the claimant sued.
Judgment was given for the defendant; the jury had found that she was not negligent and the
court held that she ought not to be liable for an extraordinary act of nature which she could not
reasonably anticipate.

7
Lomax v Stoot(1870) 39 L.J. Ch.834
8
Ponting v Noakes (1849) 2 QB 281
9
Had it been grown there expressly for the purpose of alluring to their destruction, the defendant would have been
liable.
10
(1876) 2 Ex.D. 1.

Page | 8
STATUTORY AUTHORITY

The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher may be excluded by statute. Whether it is so or not is a question
of construction of the particular statute concerned. In Green v. Chelsea11 Waterworks Co. for
instance, a main belonging to a waterworks company, which was authorized by Parliament to lay
the main, burst without any negligence on part of the company and the claimant’s premises were
flooded; the company was held not liable. On the other hand, in Charging Cross Electricity Co
v. Hydraulic Power Co12 where the facts were similar, the defendants were held to have no
exemption upon the interpretation of their statute. The distinction between the cases is that the
Hydraulic Power Co were empowered by statute to supply water for industrial purposes, that is,
they had permissive power but not a mandatory authority, and they wre under no obligation to
keep their mains charged with water at high pressure, or at all. The Chelsea Waterworks Co were
authorized by statute to lay mains and were under a statutory duty to maintain a continuous
supply of water; it was an inevitable consequence that damage would be caused by occasional
bursts and so by necessary implication the statute exempted them from liability where there was
no “negligence”. Where a statutory authority is under a mandatory obligation to supply a service,
whether with a savings or nuisance clause or whether without such a clause, the authority is
under no liability for anything expressly required by statute to be done, or reasonably incidental
to that requirement, if it was done without negligence. Where the statutory authority is merely
permissive, with no clause imposing liability for nuisance, the authority is not liable for doing
what the statute authorizes, provided it is not negligent; but it is liable when there is a clause
imposing liability for nuisance, even if it is not negligent.

CONSENT OF THE CLAIMANT

Where the claimant has expressly or impliedly consented to the presence of the source of danger
and there has been no negligence on the part of the defendant, the defendant is not liable. The
main application of principle of implied consent is found in cases where different floor in the
same building are occupied by different persons and the tenant of the lower floor suffers damage

11
(1894) 70 L.T. 547
12
(1914) 3 K.B. 772.

Page | 9
as the result of water escaping from an upper floor, though it has to be said that the cases which
have discussed this defense have tended to involve perfectly ordinary domestic fittings which
would to modern eyes be a natural use of land.

ACT OF STRANGER

The rule also doesn’t apply when the damage is caused due to the act of a third party. The third
party means that the person is neither the servant of the defendant, nor the defendant has any
contract with them or control over their work. But where the acts of the third party can be
foreseen, the defendant must take due care. Otherwise, he will be held responsible.

For instance, in the case of Box v Jubb13, where the reservoir of the defendant overflowed
because a third party emptied his drain through the defendant’s reservoir, the Court held that the
defendant wouldn’t be liable.

RULE OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

The rule of absolute liability was evolved in the case of M.C.Mehta v. Union of India. This was
a very important landmark judgment that brought in a new rule in the history of the Indian Law.
The rule held that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity
and it harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or
inherently dangerous activity resulting, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to
compensate to all those who are affected by the accident.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India

13
(1879) 4 Ex.D. 76

Page | 10
FACTS- Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industry, a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills Limited, was
engaged in the manufacture of dangerous chemical. On December 1985, large amounts of oleum
gas leaked form one of the units in the heart of Delhi which resulted in the death of several
persons. The leakage, resulted from the bursting of a tank containing oleum gas, was caused by
mechanical and human errors. It created a scare among the people residing nearby and within
two days, another leakage, a minor one, broke out as a result of oleum gas escaping from the
joints of a pipe.
On 6th December 1985, the District Magistrate, Delhi ordered Shriram to stop the manufacturing
and processing of hazardous chemicals and fertilizers at their establishment in Delhi and to
remove such chemicals and gases from Delhi. At this particular point, M.C. Mehta moved to
Supreme Court to file PIL and claim for compensation for the losses caused and also demanded
that the closed establishment should not restart.

ISSUE RAISED-It was contested that if all the tragedies arising from the conduct of the large
factories follow the rule of strict liability, they will fall under the exceptions and get away scot
free for the damage they have caused in the conduct of their activity.

JUDGEMENT-The Court had noted that this was the second case of large-scale leakage of a
deadly gas in India within the period of a year in India, as a year earlier more than 3000 people
had died due to the leakage of gas from the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal 14 and lakhs of others
were subjected to various other kinds of diseases. If the rule of strict liability laid down
in Rylands v. Fletcher was applied to such situations, then those who had established “hazardous
and inherently dangerous” industries in and around thickly populated areas could escape the
liability for the havoc caused thereby by pleading some exception. The Supreme Court therefore
evolved a new rule – the rule of “Absolute Liability”, as coined by the then Chief Justice of India
PN Bhagwati.

Justice P.N. Bhagwati said, “We would therefore held that where and enterprise is engaged in
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm result to anyone on account of an
14
Union Carbide Corporation vs. Union Of India 1990 AIR 273, 1989 SCC (2) 540

Page | 11
accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity. For example, in
escape of toxic gas, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who
are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exception which
operates vis-à-vis the tortious liability of strict liability under the rule of Ryland v. Fletcher.

The Court gave two reasons justifying the rule:

 The enterprise carrying on such hazardous and inherently dangerous activity for private
profit has a social obligation to compensate those suffering therefrom, and it should absorb
such loss as overhead; and
 The enterprise alone has the resource to discover and guard against such hazards and
dangers.

The Court also laid down that the measure of compensation payable, that it should be
correlated to the capacity of the enterprise, so that it can have the deterrent effect and the larger
and more prosperous enterprises providing a greater amount of compensation for the damages
they have caused.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN STRICT AND ABSOLUTE

LIABILTY

The difference between Strict and Absolute liability was clearly mentioned by the Supreme
Court in M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, where the court summarized it broadly as follows:

Firstly, In Absolute Liability only those enterprises shall be held liable which are involved in
hazardous or inherently dangerous activities, this implies that other industries not falling in
above ambit shall be covered under the rule of strict liability.

Secondly, the escape of a dangerous thing from one’s own land is not necessary; it means that the
rule of absolute liability shall be applicable to those injured within the premise and person
outside the premise.

Page | 12
Thirdly, the rule of Absolute Liability does not have an exception, whereas as some exception
were provided in rule of Strict Liability.

Fourthly, the rule of Ryland v. Fletcher applies only to non natural use of land but the rule of
absolute liability applies to even the natural use of land. If a person uses a dangerous substance
which may be natural use of land and if such substance escapes, he shall be held liable even
though he have taken proper care.

Further, the extent of damages depends on the magnitude and financial capability of the institute.
Supreme court also contended that, the enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to
ensure that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activities in which it is engaged must be
conducted with the highest standards of safety and security and if any harm results on account of
such negligent activity, the enterprise/institute must be held absolutely liable to compensate for
any damage caused and no opportunity is to given to answer to the enterprise to say that it had
taken all reasonable care and that the harm caused without any negligence on his part.15

CONCLUSION
The rule of strict liability and absolute liability can be seen as exceptions. A person is made
liable only when he is at fault. But the principle governing these two rules is that a person can be
made liable even without his fault. This is known as the principle of “no fault liability.” Under
these rules, the liable person may not have done the act, but he’ll still be responsible for the
damage caused due to the acts. In the case of strict liability, there are some exceptions where the
defendant wouldn’t be made liable. But in the case of absolute liability, no exceptions are
provided to the defendant. The defendant will be made liable under the strict liability rule no
matter what.

15
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal: Law of Tort 26th edition pg 520

Page | 13
REFERENCES

Page | 14
Page | 15