STRICT LIABILTY

 The principle of strict liability evolved in the case of Rylands v Fletcher.

 The principle of strict liability states that any person who keeps hazardous
substances on his premises will be held responsible if such substances escape
the premises and causes any damage.
 Essentials of Strict Liability
• Dangerous Substances: The defendant will be held strictly liable only if a
“dangerous” substances escapes from his premises.
• 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.
• Non natural use: 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.
 Ryland v Fletcher


The principle of strict liability evolved in the case of Rylands v Fletcher.

Going into the facts of the case, F had a mill on his land, and to power the
mill, F built a reservoir on his land. Due to some accident, the water from the
reservoir flooded the coal mines owned by R. Subsequently, R filed a suit
against F. The Court held that the defendant built the reservoir at his risk,
and in course of it, if any accident happens then the defendant will be liable
for the accident and escape of the material.

Exception to the Rule of Strict Liability
Plaintiff’s Fault: If the plaintiff is at fault and any damage is
caused, the defendant wouldn’t be held liable, as the plaintiff
himself came in contact with the dangerous thing.

Ponting v Noakes: The plaintiff’s horse died after it entered the

property of the defendant and ate some poisonous leaves. The
Court held that it was a wrongful intrusion, and the defendant
was not to be held strictly liable for such loss.

Act of God: The phrase “act of God” can be defined as an event

which is beyond the control of any human agency. Such acts
happen exclusively due to natural reasons and cannot be
prevented even while exercising caution and foresight.
Act of the Third Party: 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 Jubb, 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.

Consent of the Plaintiff: This exception follows the principle of violenti non fit
injuria.

For instance, if A and B are neighbors, and they share the same water source
which is situated on the land of A, and if the water escapes and causes damage to
B, he can’t claim damages, as A wouldn’t be liable for the damage
ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
 The rule of absolute liability, in simple words, can be defined as the rule of strict liability
minus the exceptions.

 In India, the rule of absolute liability evolved in the case of MC Mehta v Union of India.

 According to the rule of absolute liability, if any person is engaged in an inherently

dangerous or hazardous activity, and if any harm is caused to any person due to any
accident which occurred during carrying out such inherently dangerous and hazardous
activity, then the person who is carrying out such activity will be held absolutely liable.
The exception to the strict liability rule also wouldn’t be considered
 Facts of the case

The facts of the case are that some oleum gas leaked in a particular area in Delhi
from industry. Due to the leakage, many people were affected. The Apex Court
then evolved the rule of absolute liability on the rule of strict liability and stated
that the defendant would be liable for the damage caused without considering
the exceptions to the strict liability rule.

The rule laid down in the case of MC Mehta v UOI was also followed by the
Supreme Court while deciding the case of Bhopal Gas Tragedy case. To ensure
that victims of such accidents get quick relief through insurance, the Indian
Legislature passed the Public Liability Insurance Act in the year 1991.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
 The liability of doing any wrongful act on behalf of another person is based on
the concept of respondeat superior. Also, this means that the superior should
be let liable. Some of the examples of relationship where vicarious liability may
arise are principal-agent, master-servant, etc.

 1. Master and Servant

 In this case, the general rule is that the master is liable for all sorts of acts that
are authorized by him. Also, it is included that the acts are done by the servant
at the time of his/her employment.

 Thus, for the liability to arise, the following conditions should be satisfied. One
is that the tort is committed by the servant. And other is that the tort
committed by the servant should be at the time of employment.
 Although there is a difference between an independent contractor and a
servant. An independent contractor is someone who is employed to perform a
certain task. Thus, in this, the master cannot determine the way in which the
job is to be done.

 While a servant is someone who is employed to do the work under the

controls of the master and his direction. So, the important thing here to note
is that the master is also not liable for the acts that are done by the
independent contractor.

 For example, the driver you hire is your servant. You can give me advice as to
how to drive the car and give him directions. While the taxi driver in this
scenario will be the independent contractor. Thus, you can only tell the
direction to the taxi driver but you cannot order him.
 2. Principal and Agent

Principal, in this case, is a person who authorizes someone to act on his/her behalf. While the
other who is advised to act accordingly is called as the agent. It is always stated that the
principal is stated liable for any act by his agent. It is important that the act is authorized by
the principal for him to be held liable. The authority that principal acts can be in the form of
implication or expressed.

 TWO TESTS:

❖ In the hire and fire test, you can whether someone is your employee or not by knowing
whether that person can be fired or not.

❖ The other test that you have to do is direction and control test. In this test, check whether
the person that needs to do the job receives the direction regarding the direction from his
master? If the answer is yes then that person is a servant.
REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE
 The principle of Remoteness of Damages is relevant to such cases. An event constituting a
wrong can constitute of single consequence or may constitute of consequences i.e. series of
acts/wrongs. The damage may be proximate or might be remote, or too remote.

 Scott v. Shepherd:

‘A’ threw a lighted squib into a crowd, it fell upon ‘X’. In order to prevent injury to himself,
X did the same thing and it fell upon Y. Y in his turn did the same thing and it then fell on B,
as a result of which B lost one of his eyes. A was held liable to B. His act was the proximate
cause of damage even though his act was farthest from the damage in so far as the acts X and
Y had intervened in between.


Haynes v. Harwood

The defendant’s servants negligently left a house van unattended in a crowded street. The
throwing of stones at the horses by a child, made them bolt and a policeman was injured in an
attempt to stop them with a view to rescuing the woman and children on the road. One of the
defenses pleaded by the defendant was remoteness of consequences i.e. the mischief of the child
was the proximate cause and the negligence of the servants was a remote cause.

 Certainly, the question of where to draw the line on recover-ability of consequential losses
cannot be answered by a mathematically precise formula. Judges have used their discretion
from time to time, and in that process, two formulas have been highlighted:

1. The test of reasonable foresight

2. The test of directness

 The Test Of Reasonable Foresight

If the consequences of a wrongful act could be foreseen by a reasonable man,

then they are not too remote. If on the other hand, a reasonable man could not
have foreseen the consequences, then they are too remote. And, an individual
shall be liable only for the consequences which are not too remote i.e. which
could be foreseen.

 The Test Of Directness

According to the test of directness, a person is liable for all the direct
consequences of his wrongful act, whether he could foresee them or not; because
consequences which directly follow a wrongful act are not too remote.
Remedies in Tort Law

 Remedies in Tort Law are of 2 types

1. Judicial Remedies: These are the remedies that the courts of law provide to
an aggrieved party.

2. Extra-Judicial Remedies: If the injured party takes the law in their own hand
(albeit lawfully), the remedies are called extra-judicial remedies.
 Judicial remedies in tort are of three main types

1. Damages: Damages or legal damages is the amount of money paid to the aggrieved
party to bring them back to the position in which they were before the tort had
occurred. They are paid to a plaintiff to help them recover the loss they have suffered.

2. Injunction: Injunction is an equitable remedy available in torts, granted at the

discretion of the court. So, when a court asks a person to not continue to do something,
or to do something positive so as to recover the damage of the aggrieved party, the
court is granting an injunction.

3. Specific Restitution of Property: the third judicial remedy available in the Law of Torts
is that of Specific Restitution of Property. Restitution means the restoration of goods
back to the owner of the goods. When a person is wrongfully dispossessed of his
property or goods, he is entitled to the restoration of his property.
 Types of Extra-judicial Remedies in Tort

1. Expulsion of trespasser: A person can use a reasonable amount of force to expel a trespasser
from his property.

2. Re-entry on land: In this case, the owner of a property can remove the trespasser and re-
enter his property by using a reasonable amount of force.

3. Re-caption of goods: In this case, the owner of goods is entitled to recapture his/her goods from
any person whose unlawful possession they are in.

4. Abatement: In case of a nuisance, be it private or public, a person (the injured party) can
remove the object causing nuisance.

5. Distress Damage Feasant: Lastly, distress damage feasant. In this case, a person’s cattle/other
beasts move to another’s property and his crops are spoiled. The owner of the property is
entitled to take possession of the beasts until he is compensated for the loss suffered by him