Professional Documents
Culture Documents
To make one liable under law of torts one must prove violation of legal duty due
to:
fault,
negligence or
wrongful intent of the defendant.
If there is no fault, or negligence or wrongful intent on the part of the defendant,
then he will escape liability.
This doctrine makes some persons responsible for damages, their actions or
products cause, regardless of any “fault” on their part.
Rylands and Fletcher were neighbours. Fletcher was running a coal mine on
lease. Rylands desired to construct a water reservoir on his land for storing water
and supplying it to the Ainsworth Mill. R gave this job to an independent
contractor.
“We think that the true rule of law is, that a person who for his own purposes
brings on his lands 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 the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape…”
“If a person brings or accumulates on his land anything which, if it should escape
may cause damage to his neighbours he does so at his peril. If it does escape and
cause damage he is responsible, however, careful he may have been, and
whatever precaution he may have to prevent the damage”.
“…one who should know that his activity, even though carefully prosecuted, may
harm others, and should treat this harm as a cost of his activity. This cost item
will influence pricing, and will be passed on to consumer spread so widely that no
one will be seriously affected”.
(See, Prof. Clarence Morris, “Hazardous Enterprises and Risk Bearing Capacity”
61 Yale L.J. 1172 (1952))
Scott LJ referred to the rule as 'a broad principle … that the liability attaches
because of the occupier of the land bringing onto the land something which
is likely to do damage if it escapes'.
Viscount Simon aptly put the essential conditions to make one liable under
doctrine of strict liability as follows:
The Court held that the injury was caused on the premises of the defendants i.e.
not outside, thus no escape thereby, the respondents were not liable.
Or
lighting cigarette in the petrol pump or preparing food thereby may also
amount to non natural use of land.]
The Court held that the use of explosives in an open field on the occasion of
festival is a “non-natural” user of land.
Due to overflow of water from a canal, damage was done to plaintiff’s property.
The Supreme Court held that use of land for construction of a canal system is a
normal use and thus not non natural use of land.
A was owner of a sugar factory. B owned land adjacent to A’s sugar factory. A
stored quantity of molasses and it escaped to B’s land and damaged his crop. B
sued A.
Collecting molasses in large quantities was held by the Court to be non natural
use of land and if a person collected such things on his land and escaped to
neighbours land, he was liable.
Water, Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co. v. Hydraulic Power Co [1914] 3 KB 772
Plaintiff’s consent;
Plaintiff’s own default;
Act of third party;
Act of God/Vis Major;
Statutory Authority.
Taylor, the landlord, rented his upper story to the plaintiff. Taylor, for the benefit
of both maintained a rain water box. Some rats gnawed the water box which
resulted into escape of water and damaging the goods of the plaintiff. The
defendant was held not liable as there was plaintiff’s consent and no negligence
on the part of the defendant.
Constructing a water storage to increase the supply of water is natural use of land
and a permitted act, subject to application of emergency measure. One such
measure is to make arrangement for outlet of water in case of emergency. It was
not done in the present case which resulted into the damage to the property of
one and great loss thereby.
This repudiation of the principle in Rylands vs. Fletcher (supra) is contrary to the
modern judicial philosophy of social justice.
(See, Winfield and Jolowicz, Tort, (Sweet & Maxwell: 13th Edition, 1989) at
p.443)
In that case the plaintiff was seriously injured in an explosion of gas, which also
destroyed their home, killed her husband. Her action in Court failed, in view of
the decision in Dunne vs. North Western Gas Board (1964) 2 QB 806.
The Plaintiff, a girl of sixteen along with other members got injured when an
explosion blew her off her cycle. The explosions which caused these accidents
arose from a gas main and travelled along a sewer becoming mixed with air and
so becoming highly inflammable and explosive.
She sought judgment in her favour on the ground that the Gas Board were in
breach of duty owed by them under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.
Vivienne Harpwood has construed the position of strict liability after the
Pearson Committee then and today as follows:
“It is extremely unusual for a claim under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher to reach
the courts today”.
(See, Vivienne Harpwood, Modern Tort Law, (Routledge: 5th Edition, 2003) at
p.242)
(See Sheila McLean, John Kenyon Mason, Legal and Ethical Aspects of
Healthcare, (Cambridge University Press, 2003) at p.93.
"the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and
protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic
and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life".
Thus, being a welfare state, it is the duty of the State under our Constitution to
look after the welfare of all its citizens.
“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 this country…Law
cannot allow our judicial thinking to be constrained by reference of the law as it
prevails in England or for the matter of that in any other foreign legal order.”
“This rule evolved in the 19th Century at a time when all these developments of
science and technology had not taken place cannot afford any guidance in
evolving any standard of liability consistent with the constitutional norm and the
needs of the present day economy and social structure.” It further held that,
“Application of exceptions to this rule is inapplicable.”
Should the Corporation be held responsible to meet the cost of the remedial
action to remove and store the sludge in safe and proper manner?
Should they be made liable for the loss and suffering caused to the village where
the industrial complex was located?
The apex court called it a rule of "Polluter pays" and stated that the industry
alone has the resources to discover and guard against hazards and dangers
caused by its actions.
It is also difficult for the victim to establish the absence of reasonable care or
foreseeability of the industry.
For these reasons, the onus ought to lie on the industry. In fact, the Court
imposed on the respondent’s liability not only for environmental hazards, but
also the cost of all measures including remedial measures recovered from them.
In this case, a tigress chewed the hand of a three year old child. While holding the
Zoo authorities liable the Court held that the zoo authorities being under
absolute responsibility did not perform their part of duty and thus should be
answerable to pay compensation.
The Supreme Court held that “even assuming that all safety measures had been
adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure
to human life is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by
any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of
the managers of such undertaking. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable
risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is
known, in law, “strict liability”.
In Jay Laxmi Salt works (P) Ltd. vs. the State of Gujarat, 1994 (3) SC 492, the
Supreme Court observed: "Law of torts being a developing law its frontiers are
incapable of being strictly barricaded".
-have shocked the conscience of people all over the world and have aroused
thinkers to the dangers in industrial and other activities, in the modern society ,
and the need and importance of these doctrines.
(For the information on oil spills and disasters, refer to “Oil Spills and Disasters“,
http://infoplease.com/ipa/A0001451.html)