STRICT AND
ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
Click to add text
BB.A LL.B First Year
Introduction
The strict and absolute liability principle is an extremely
important concept under the Law of Torts. The basis of this
principle lies in the inherent harm that some activities can
inflict.
The strict liability principle was laid down in the case of
Rylands v/s Fletcher. In tort law, strict liability is the
imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such
as negligence or tortious intent).
Rylands v/s Fletcher.
Facts:
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 mines owned by R. Subsequently,
R filed a suit against F.
Held:
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.
Rule of Strict Liability
The basis of liability was laid down by BLACKBURN, J in
Rylands v/s Fletcher : “ The rule of law is that the person
who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and keeps
there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep
it at his risk/peril; and if it does not do so is prima facie
answerable for all the damage which is the natural
consequence of its escape”
The rationale for strict liability is the foreseeable risk
inherent in the very nature of the activities.
Rule of Strict Liability
• According to this rule, if a person brings on his land and
keeps there any dangerous thing, which is likely to do
mischief if it escapes, he will be answerable for the
damage caused by its escape even though he may not be
negligent in keeping it there.
ESSENTIALS OF STRICT LIABILITY
• Dangerous thing
1.
• Escape of that thing causing
2. foreseeable damage
• Non-natural use of land
3.
Essentials explained
1. Dangerous thing
The liability for escape of a thing from one’s land arises if a
thing collected was the dangerous thing.
For the purpose of imposing strict liability, a dangerous
substance can be defined as any substance which will
cause some harm/damage if it escapes.
e.g explosives, toxic gases, electricity etc. can be termed
as dangerous things.
Essentials explained
2. Escape
One more essential condition to make the defendant strictly
liable is that the material should escape to an area outside
the occupation and control of the Defendant resulting in
foreseeable damage.
Case law: Read v/s J. Lyons & Co (1947)
Essentials explained
Case law: Read v/s J. Lyons & Co (1947)
Facts:
The Defendants undertook the management and control of
a factory in which they made high explosives. There was an
explosion in the factory in which the Plaintiff (employee)
was injured.
Held:
For strict liability to apply, the dangerous thing must escape
from the defendant’s land and cause damage. In the
present case, there was no escape of dangerous thing.
Essentials explained
3. Non-natural use of land
• It means some special use of land bringing with it increased danger to others and not merely
ordinary use of land. 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.
• The concept of non-natural use is flexible. Consideration of time, place, surroundings,
circumstances and purpose, all enter in determination of the question whether a particular
use is natural or non-natural.
e.g water collected in a reservoir in a large quantity was held to be non-natural use . Keeping
water of ordinary domestic purposes is natural use. But storing water for the purpose of
energizing a mill was considered non-natural by the Court.
Case law: Rickards v/s Lothian
Essentials explained
Case law: Rickards v Lothian [1913]
The claimant ran a business from the second floor of a
building. The defendant owned the building and leased
different parts to other business tenants. An unknown person
had blocked all the sinks in the lavatory on the fourth floor and
turned on all the taps in order to cause a flood. This
damaged the claimant’s stock and the claimant brought an
action based on the principle set out in Rylands v/s Fletcher
Held:
The defendants were not liable. The act which caused the
damage was a wrongful act by a third party and there was no
non-natural use of land.
Essentials explained
Thus, if the Defendant makes non-natural use of land in his
occupation in the course of which there is escape of some
dangerous thing which causes foreseeable damage outside
of the Defendant’s premise, the Defendant is liable
irrespective of any question of negligence on his part.
Case laws:
i) Northwestern Utilities, Limited v. London Guarantee
and Accident Company Limited
ii) M Madhappa v/s K Kariappa
iii) M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari
Essentials explained
Case law: M Madhappa v/s K Kariappa (1964)
Where the Defendant set fire to his land without taking
necessary precaution to prevent the same from spreading
into the lands in the neighbourhood, it was held that he was
liable for any damage caused to those lands.
Case Law: M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari
Facts:
A person was driving a bicycle on the road. There was rain and hence the
cyclist did not notice the live wire on the road and hence he rode the vehicle
over the wire which twitched and snatched him and he was instantaneously
electrocuted. He fell down and died within minutes.. The Electricity Board
contended that a third party had taken a wire from the main supply line in
order to siphon the energy for his own use and the said act of pilferage was
done secretly without even the notice of the Board; and that the line got
unfastened from the hook and it fell on the road over which the cycle ridden
by the deceased slided resulting in the instantaneous electrocution.
Held:
The Board was liable under Strict Liability. The exception (act of third party)
is not available to the Board as the act attributed to the third respondent
should reasonably have been anticipated.
Exceptions to the Rule of Strict Liability
The Strict Liability rule in Rylands v/s Fletcher is not
absolute. There are five exceptions.
Exceptions to the rule of Strict Liability
1. Act of God
2. Plaintiff’s own default
3. Consent of the Plaintiff/Common Benefit
4. Act of Third Party
5. Statutory Authority
Exceptions to the rule of Strict Liability
1. Act of God
The Act if God is considered as a defence to an action under the rule in Rylands v/s
Fletcher.
An “Act of God” is a direct, violent and sudden act of nature which by any amount of human
foresight could not have been foreseen and if foreseen, could not by any amount of human
care and skill have been resisted.
Generally, those acts which are occasioned by the elementary forces of nature,
unconnected with the agency of man or other cause will come under the category of acts of
God.
For example: floods, earthquake, extraordinary high tide, extraordinary rainfall etc.
What is important here is that it is not necessary that it should be unique or that it should
happen for the first time. It is enough that it is extraordinary and such as could not
reasonably be anticipated.
Case law: Nichols v. Marsland (1876)
Exceptions to the rule of Strict Liability
2. Plaintiff’s own default
If the Plaintiff suffers a damage due to its own fault, he
cannot complain of the damage. 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.
Case law: Ponting v Noakes
Exceptions to the rule of Strict Liability
Case law: Ponting v Noakes
Facts:
The plaintiff's horse intruded into the defendant's land and
died after having nibbled the leaves of a poisonous tree
there.
Held:
The defendant was held not liable because damage would
not have occurred but for the horse's own intrusion to the
defendant's land. The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher did not
apply to the case for another reason also, i.e., that there
was no escape.
Exceptions to the rule of Strict Liability
3. Consent of the Plaintiff/Common Benefit
• This exception follows the principle of volenti non fit injuria i.e where the
Plaintiff has consented to the accumulation of the dangerous thing.
• 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.
• If the dangerous thing that is most likely to cause harm is bought to the land
for the common benefit of both, the defendant and the plaintiff, that only the
defendant cannot be made liable for the harm it caused by the escape,
provided that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant.
Case law: Kiddle v/s City Business Properties Ld
.
Case law: Kiddle v/s City Business Properties Ld
Where the plaintiff and the defendant occupy parts of the
same building, and water which is laid on to the building
escapes and does damage, the person from whose part
the escape took place is not liable in the absence of
negligence.
Exceptions to the rule of Strict Liability
4. Act of 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. If, however, the act of the stranger is
such that it ought to have been anticipated and guarded against, the
defendant will be liable for failure to take reasonable care.
Case laws:
i) 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.
ii) Rickards v Lothian
iii) M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari
Exceptions to the rule of Strict Liability
5. Statutory Authority
The rule in Rylands v Fletcher may be excluded by statute. No
action will lie for doing that which the legislature has authorized if it
is done without negligence, but an action will lie for doing that which
the legislature has authorized, if it is done negligently.
Where the defendant is empowered or authorized or required under
the law or a statue to accumulate, keep or collect the dangerous
thing, which escapes and causes mischief and injury to the plaintiff,
persons empowered by statute to bring or keep upon their land, a
dangerous substance are not liable in the absence of negligence or
an express provision in the statute to the contrary for the damage
caused by its escape.
Case laws: Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Co.
Exceptions to the rule of Strict Liability
In Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Co,
The defendant Company had a statutory duty to maintain
continuous supply of water. A main belonging to the
company burst without any negligence on its part, as a
consequence of which the plaintiff's premises were flooded
with water.
Held:
It was held that the company was not liable as the
company was engaged in performing a statutory duty.
Position in India
The rule of strict liability is applicable as much in India as in
England. There has, however, been recognition of some
deviation both ways, i.e., in the extension of the scope of
the rule of strict liability as well as the limitation of its scope.
Applicability of Strict and Absolute Liability rule in India
(Illustrative)
• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Liability without fault
• Factories Act, 1948
• Public Liability Insurance Act 1991
• National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
• Polluter Pays Principle
Absolute Liability
• Wrongs of absolute liability imposes a kind of liability on a
person which is somewhat peculiar in the sense that a
person becomes liable without there being any fault on
his/her part. It is absolute, meaning thereby, that it is not
necessary for the injured party to prove any intention or
negligence on the part of the injuring party, and no
amount of care and caution expended by the latter to
prevent the damage done to the former will excuse him.
Bhopal Gas Tragedy
• The tragedy was a result of the leak of the methyl isocyanate
(MIC) gas from the Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL) plant which
manufactured pesticides. On the night of December 2-3, 1984,
there was a leak of the MIC gas which is considered to be the most
toxic chemical in industrial use. All around the city of Bhopal,
people were exposed to this gas. Thousands of people died
immediately and lakhs of people sustained permanent injuries.
• It is considered as one of the world’s worst industrial disasters.
M.C Mehta v/s Union of India (Oleum Gas leakage
case)
The Supreme Court was dealing with a claim arising from
the leakage of oleum gas in December 1985 from one of
the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries in
Delhi. As a result of the leakage, one person died and
several others were affected. The action was brought
through a PIL before the Supreme Court.
M.C Mehta v/s Union of India (Oleum Gas leakage
case)
• Held:
The Supreme Court observed that the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher will all of its
exceptions is not applicable for the industries engaged in hazardous activities.
This strict liability rule evolved in the 19th century at a time when all these
developments of science and technology has not taken place. An enterprise
which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses
a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory
and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and nondelegable
duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of
hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has
undertaken. The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide
that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must
be conducted with the highest standards of safety and if any harm results on
account of such activity, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to
compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say
that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any
negligence on its part.
Indian Council for Enviro legal Action v/s Union of
India
Facts:
Silver Chemicals, a sister concern of Hindustan Agro
Chemicals Ltd, started production of ‘H ‘Acid in a plant. Its
manufacture gives rise to enormous quantities of highly toxic
effluents, which if not properly treated, pose a grave threat to
mother earth. The untreated waster water was allowed to flow
out freely and thus, the waste water mixed with the water in
the wells and streams. Such water became unfit for
consumption. It spread disease, death and disaster in the
village area.
Held:
The Company was held to be absolutely liable for
compensation.
Vizag Gas Leakage Case
In May, 2020, Styrene – a hazardous gas – has leaked from a
chemical factory belonging to LG Polymers in Vishakhapatnam.
This resulted in the death of around 11 persons and hospitalization
of more than 100 people. More than 1000 people were reported
sick. There was also damage to environment and habitat.
The National Green Tribunal has made Strict Liability applicable.
As an interim compensation, NGT awarded Rs.50 Crore. It has also
established an expert committee for the overall review and
submission of the report.
Strict Liability v/s Absolute Liability
Strict Liability Absolute Liability
1. It is subject to exceptions. It is not subject to any exception. If an
enterprise is involved in hazardous
activities, they are liable for damage
so caused, despite observance of due
diligence.
2. It requires non-natural use of land. No such requirement. It applies even
to natural use of land.
3. The dangerous thing should escape The escape of a dangerous thing from
outside the occupation and control of Defendant’s land is not necessary; it
the Defendant. means that the rule of absolute liability
shall be applicable to those injured
within the premise and person outside
the premise.
Illustrative Application of Strict and Absolute
Liability in India : No Fault Liability
Motor
Vehicles
Act
Public
Polluter
Liability
Pays
Insurance
Principle
Act
No Fault
liability
National
Factories Green
Act Tribunal
Act
• The Indian Law has recognised the concept of Strict and
Absolute Liability in a number of codified laws such as
Motor Vehicles Act, Public Liability Insurance Act etc.
• “No-Fault Liability” is a concept derived from Absolute
liability: The claimant/plaintiff need not prove the fault of
the defendant.
Public Liability Insurance Act 1991
• The Public Liability Insurance Act 1991 came into force after
the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and aims to provide immediate
assistance to victims of accidents involving hazardous
industries.
• Very often, the majority of the people affected are from the
economically weaker sections & suffer great hardships because of
delayed relief & compensation. Industrial units seldom have the
willingness to readily compensate the victims of accidents & the only
remedy now available for the victims is to go through prolonged
litigation in the court of law.
• It ensures `No Fault Liability’ against the owners of hazardous substances.
In other words, it could be said that the owner of a hazardous substance
must have insured so that any person injured or died of any hazardous
substance could claim compensation , without going into any question of
fault on the part of the owner.
Public Liability Insurance Act 1991
• Section 3 Liability to give relief in certain cases on
principle of no fault.
Where death or injury to any person (other than a
workman) or damage to any property has resulted from an
accident, the owner shall be liable to give such relief as is
specified in the Schedule for such death, injury or damage
In any claim for relief under this section, the claimant shall
not be required to plead and establish that the death, injury
or damage in respect of which the claim has been made
was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of any
person.
Public Liability Insurance Act 1991
• Section 4: . Duty of owner to take out insurance policies.
Every owner shall take out, before he starts handling any
hazardous substance, one or more insurance policies
providing for contracts of insurance whereby he is insured
against liability to give relief under section 3
Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
• Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.
—
• Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an
accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner
of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall,
jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death
or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section.
In case of death: Rs. 50,000/-
In case of permanent disablement: Rs. 25,000/-
• The claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or
permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due
to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle
or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
Section 17 of the National Green Tribunal Act,
2010
Liability to pay relief or compensation in certain cases. –
Where death of, or injury to, any person (other than a workman) or damage
to any property or environment has resulted from an accident or the adverse
impact of an activity or operation or process, under any enactment
specified in Schedule I, the person responsible shall be liable to pay such
relief or compensation for such death, injury or damage, under all or any of
the heads specified in Schedule II, as may be determined by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal shall, in case of an accident, apply the principle of no fault.
Case Law : Vizag Gas Leakage case
Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948
• Section 92 provides for strict liability on the occupier for non-
compliance under the Act. Section 92 provides for joint liability
of the occupier and the manager for offences under the Act. The
fact that the director designated as the occupier is ignorant
about the management of the factory which has been entrusted
to a manager or some other employee and is himself not
responsible for the contravention does not absolve him of his
liability.
Polluter Pays Principle
• The Polluter Pays Principle was first introduced in 1972
by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) Guiding Principles concerning
International Economic Aspects of Environmental
policies where under the polluter was held responsible
for the environmental damage and pollution.
• Rio Declaration, 1992 : Principle 16 enshrined the
Polluter Pays principle stating that “the polluter should
bear the cost of pollution”
Polluter Pays Principle
• What does the principle say?
The Polluter Pays Principle imposes liability on a person
who pollutes the environment to compensate for the
damage caused and return the environment to its original
state regardless of the intent.
Case laws:
i) Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India
ii) Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum vs. Union of India
iii) The Oleum Gas Leak case (M.C. Mehta vs. Union of
India)
iv) M. C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors
Polluter Pays Principle
• Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of
India
• The Court held that once the activity carried on is hazardous or
inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is
liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his
activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable
care while carrying on his activity. The rule is premised upon
the very nature of the activity carried on.
Polluter Pays Principle
• Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum vs. Union of India
Facts:
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum, filed a PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution. The
Petition was filed against the water pollution caused due to excessive release of
pollutants by the tanneries and other industries in the State of Tamil Nadu into the
river Palar. Palar River was the main source of water for the livelihood of the
surrounding people. Later, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Research Centre,
Vellore discovered that approximately 35,000 hectares of agricultural land has
turned either entirely or partially barren and not fit for cultivation.
Held:
The Court interpreted the meaning of the Polluter Pays Principle as the absolute
liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of
the pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation.
Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the process of 'Sustainable
Development' and as such the polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual
sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology."
Polluter Pays Principle
• The Oleum Gas Leak case (M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India)
The Court laid down that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or
inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to
the health and safety of persons working in the factory and to
those residing in the surrounding areas, owes an absolute and
non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm
results to any one on account of hazardous or inherently
dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken. The
enterprise is absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and
irrespective of all reasonable care taken on his account. The larger
and more prosperous the enterprise, greater must be the amount
of the compensation payable for the harm caused on account of
an accident in the carrying on of the hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity by the enterprise.
