LAW OF TORTS

Strict and Absolute Liability

 Rule of Strict Liability
(The rule in Ryland v. Fletcher)
 Ryland v. Fletcher

• In this case, defendant was owner of a mill. He got a reservoir built on his land.
In fact the reservoir was built by the engineers who were independent
contractors. When reservoir building process was going on, certain shafts
were found old disused under the site of reservoir. Contractors got those
shafts filled and constructed the reservoir. When the reservoir was filled with
water then the water communicated to the mines of the plaintiff who was a
neighbour of the defendant. While constructing, reservoir filled with marl and
sand. On account of the reservoir and its leakage of water, plaintiff suffered.
He brought an action against the defendant. Defendant took defence he was
not negligent because the reservoir was built by an independent contractor.
• In the judgment J. Blackburn said, ‘we think that the true rule
of law is that the person, who for his own purposes brings in
his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do
mischief it escapes, must keep it at his peril; and if he does
not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which
is in the natural consequence if it escape.
• In this case, following principles were laid down...
1. If a person brings dangerous substance upon his land which
commits mischief and injures the neighbour, then the person who
brings dangerous substance is answerable even if he was not
negligent.
2. In case of strict liability a person shall be held responsible even
if he was not negligent.
3. A person may use his land in natural way. But if he constructs
something upon that land which commits mischief the person who
does something upon his land shall be responsible.
 Who is not liable for negligence?
• It is general principle that a person who is negligent
shall be answerable for his negligence. And a
person who acts like a prudent man is never
answerable for act done by him.
• In Ryland v. Fletcher case for first time (1868) an
exception to this is introduced. This is known as rule of
strict liability. This liability may be fixed without
negligency.
 For application of this rule following
conditions are required
1. Some d angerous thing must have been brought by a
person on his land.
2. The thing thus brought or kept by a person on his land
must e scape.
3. It must be n on natural u se.
 1. Dangerous thing

• Thing which has been escaped must be dangerous. A thing

may be dangerous by itself or it may not be so dangerous
but due to its nature, contents, quantity, use may be
dangerous. Ex. Water, gas, poles, electricity, trees, sewage,
explosives, noxious fumes etc.
 2. Escape

• Thing which is brought on the land must escape. Which

means, escape to the area outside the occupation and control
of the defendant.
• Some examples of escape are...
1. Water flow (Ryland v. Fletcher)
2. Protruding branches of trees (Crowhurst v. Amersham
Burial Board)
3. Escape of dangerous animals.
4. Escape of gas, fumes
 3. Non natural use
• It is difficult to decide what is natural use and what is non
natural use of land. From following examples it will be clear.
• N on natural use –
i. To collect a large heap of colliery soil upon unstable land.
ii. To accumulate gas in large quantity in pipe.
iii. Over use of fire.
iv. Huge quantity of water, fumes
v. Planting poisonous plants.
vi. Loaded gun
 Exceptions to this rule
• The are some exceptions to the rule in Ryland v. Fletcher, and
defendant cannot made liable.
1. Damage due to natural use of land.
2. Things escaped not dangerous.
3. Consent of the plaintiff.
4. Nigligent plaintiff.
5. Act of stranger or third party.
6. Public use or common benefit
7. Act of God.
8. Statutory authority.
• Law of torts in India is based on English law of torts.
• In India rule in Ryland v. Fletcher is followed along with its
exceptions.
 RULE OF ABSOLUTE
LIABILITY
Rule in
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India

The rule of ‘strict liability’ though is ‘strict’; there are some

exceptions to it whereby defendant could avoid his liability. But
rule of ‘absolute liability’ which is evolved in M.C. Mehta
v. Union of India leaves no defence to defendant, making him
absolutely liable. In this regard two cases i.e. Bhopal Gas
Disaster Case and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India are
important.
 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
• At 4th and 6th December 1985, there was leakage of oleum gas
from one units of Shriram Foods and Fertilisers Industries in Delhi,
belonging to Delhi Cloth Mill Ltd. In this leakage one advocate
practising in Tis Hazari court had died and several other were
affected. A writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution was
filed by way of PIL. Supreme Court held that, old rule of strict
liability was not binding and it could evolve a rule suitable to
which is prevailing the Indian conditions of social and
economic conditions. i.e. the rule of ‘absolute liability’ as part
of Indian law in preference to the rule of strict liability.
•
In the judgment, Bhagwati CJ ha.s observed that,
• The rule of strict liability was in 19th century where science and
technology had not taken place cannot afford any guidance
in evolving any standard of liability consistent with the
constitutional norm an the needs of the present day economy
and social structure.
• Law has to grow in order to satisfy the needs of fast
changing society and keep abrest with the economic
developments, taking place in this country. As new
situations arise the law has to be evolved in order to meet the
challenge of such new situations.
• About the principle of absolute liability he mentioned,
• That an enterprise, which is engaged in 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 non delegatable duty to community to
ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or
inherently dangerous 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.
• 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 enterprise to say that it has taken all reasonable care and that the
harm occurred without any negligence on its part.
 Difference between ‘strict’ and absolute liability
Strict liability Absolute liability
01 Liability arises from non natural 01 Liability arises due to hazardous
use of land. activity by an enterprise.
02 Strict liability is subject to some 02 There is no defences for absolute
defences. liability
03 Generally substantial damages 03 Along with substantial,
are awarded exemplary damages are awarded
depending upon the nature of
activity and the enterprise.
 BHOPAL GAS DISASTER CASE
(Union Carbide Corp v. Union of India)
• On the midnight of 2, 3 December 1984, mass disaster was caused by the
leakage of Methyl Isocyanate i.e. MICA gas and other toxic gases from
a plant set up by the Union Carbide India Ltd. For the manufacture of
pesticides in Bhopal. UCIL was a subsidiary company of a multinational
company registered in USA.
• It resulted in death of around 3000 person and around 600000
persons were permanently affected. The Government of India has issued
an ordinance The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (processing of claims ) Act
1985. Supreme Court has applied principle of absolute liability in this
case. Suit was settled for 750 crore rupees.
Thank y ou