TOPIC

ABSOLUTE
LIABILITY
 AIM OF THE PROJECT
• 1.To understand the principle of strict liability and absolute liability.
• 2.To know the origin of strict liability.
 STRICT LIABILITY
• The Rule of Absolute Liability is derived from the Rule of Strict Liability; hence it becomes important
to study the Strict Liability Rule first.

• ‘No fault ‘or ‘Strict Liability’, i.e., even if the defendant was not negligent or rather, even if the
defendant did not intentionally cause the harm, he could still be held liable under the rule.

• As defined in case of Rylands v Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 HL 330

 ESSENTIALS
The essentials of Strict Liability are:-
1. Some dangerous thing must have been brought by a person on his land.
In Rylands v Fletcher, the thing so collected was a large body of water. The water collected in the
reservoir was of a huge quantity and was thus regarded to be of potential danger.
2. The thing thus brought or kept by a person on his land must escape.
For the rule in Rylands v Fletcher to apply, it is also essential that the thing causing the damage must
escape to the area outside the occupation and control of the defendant. The requirement of escape was
firmly set in the law by the House of Lords’ decision in Read v J. Lyons & Co Ltd.
3. The thing that escaped in fact caused the damage.
The damage suffered by the plaintiff should be a direct consequence of the thing that escaped. In Ryland’s case, it is
the large quantity of water that has caused the damage by flooding the mines of the plaintiff. In other words, there has
to be a causal link to the thing that escapes and the damages
In a later case the House of Lords has also added the factor of ‘foreseeability’ in the famous Cambridge water
works case.

4. It must be non-natural use of land.

Water collected in the reservoir in such a huge quantity in Rylands v Fletcher was held to be non-natural use of land.
Keeping water for ordinary domestic purposes is ‘natural-use’.
In Noble v Harrison (1926) 2 KB 332,
It has been held in Sochaki v Sas, that the fire in a house in a grate is an ordinary, natural, proper, everyday use of the
fire place in a room. If this fire spreads to the adjoining premises, the liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher
cannot arise.
Similarly, in T.C. Balakrishnan Menon v T.R. Subramaniam,
 RECOGNITION OF PRINCIPLE IN
INDIAN CONTEXT
• The present condition of our country when it is on the verge of being one of the most globalised countries of the
world, inclusion of multinational corporations (MNCs)
• the protection of the very human rights and lives of people should be taken into consideration. Thus, the rule of
strict liability cannot be still considered as the only redressal principle. 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 the country.
• in Indian Council for Environmental Legal Action v. Union of India
• in the case Jagdish v. Naresh Soni ,
• SC in the case of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari, applied the same rule.
• In an important case of Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, the case clearly states that in determining the
compensation payable to Bhopal gas victims, absolute liability principle was adopted. The inappropriateness of
compensation given to the victims, being a different issue all together, the relevant factor here is that of recognition
of the concept of absolute liability while paying compensation
• Thus, from the above-mentioned points it is a key necessity for such a principle to be evolved as it will not only
shape our jurisprudence but also will help us to not carry the absolute principle of Strict liability in modern society.
• Thus, the necessity factor as discussed in the above section clearly helps us to understand as to the principle of
absolute liability is not only required to protect the basic human rights of the people, but also to develop tort law in
India and to expand our own countries jurisprudence.
 CONCLUSION

• The Doctrine of Absolute Liability was therefore evolved in Oleum Gas Leak Case and can be said to
be a strong legal tool against rogue corporations that were negligent towards health risks for the public.
This legal doctrine was much more powerful than the legal Doctrine of Strict Liability developed in the
case of English tort law Rylands v Fletcher. This meant that the defaulter could be held liable for even
third-party errors when the public was at a realistic risk. This could ensure stricter compliance to
standards that were meant to safeguard the public