Scribd
Upload
36 views3 pages

Strict Liability

The document discusses strict liability and absolute liability in tort law. Strict liability holds a defendant liable even without fault for injuries caused by dangerous activities. The leading case is Rylands v Fletcher where a reservoir burst and flooded a mine. Absolute liability removes exceptions to strict liability and expands the scope of compensation while increasing damages to an exemplary level, as established in cases following the Bhopal gas tragedy.

Uploaded by

Madhav Mitruka
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
36 views3 pages

Strict Liability

The document discusses strict liability and absolute liability in tort law. Strict liability holds a defendant liable even without fault for injuries caused by dangerous activities. The leading case is Rylands v Fletcher where a reservoir burst and flooded a mine. Absolute liability removes exceptions to strict liability and expands the scope of compensation while increasing damages to an exemplary level, as established in cases following the Bhopal gas tragedy.

Uploaded by

Madhav Mitruka
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

STRICT AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

Strict liability is a type of liability in which even when the defendant has exercised due care, has
had no intention to cause harm, and even made a positive effort to prevent harm, he is still held
liable.

RYLANDS V FLETCHER

The defendant, who was a mill owner, got a reservoir constructed in order to get a constant
supply of water. This construction was done through independent contracts. There were old,
disused shafts below the reservoir, which the contractors failed to identify and plug. When the
area was filled with water, it burst into the plaintiff’s coal mines, causing damage. Although the
defendant had not been negligent, and had been unaware of the presence of the shafts, he was
still held liable for damages, under the doctrine of strict liability.

JUSTIFICATION

Liability is not due to any fault of the defendant. Rather it is due to the fact that the defendant
had brought some dangerous thing onto his land and the same thing escaped, causing damage.

ELEMENTS OF STRICT LIABILITY

 Dangerous thing must be brought onto the defendant’s land [could be water, gas,
electricity, vibrations [;)], trees, sewage, flag poles [wut], explosives, noxious fumes,
rusty wires]

 The dangerous thing must escape.

 There must be non-natural use of the land.

EXCEPTIONS TO RYLANDS V FLETCHER

 Plaintiff’s own default

 Act of God

 Consent of the Plaintiff


 Act of 3rd Party

 Statutory Authority

Case Name Facts of the Case


Read v Lyons & Co. The plaintiff worked in an ammunition
factory. There was an explosion within the
factory and she was injured. When suit was
brought against employer, there was no
liability imposed as there was no escape of
the dangerous thing [ammunition].
Richards v Lothian No facts as such. Defined non-natural use of
land as that usage of the land which brought
with it, increased danger to others. This usage
of the land is not ordinary [duh] or for the
general benefit of the community.
T.C. Balakrishna Menon v Subramanium Indian case that utilized the Rylands v
Fletcher rule and stated that the usage of
explosives on a piece of land during a festival
amounted to non-natural usage of the land.

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

Strict liability minus the exceptions listed above constitute absolute liability. This shift was
brought about due to tremendous scientific progress and change in living pattern of humans
through the years.

The Indian courts, through MC Mehta v Union of India upheld absolute liability due to concerns
that strict liability was not enough.

Apart from deleting the exceptions of strict liability, absolute liability also does away with the
element of “escape” from strict liability, with the courts stating that it is unnecessary in the
modern context, and restricts the scope of applicability and deprives the claimant of right to
compensation in many cases.

Moreover, the quantum of damages have also been revised. In strict liability, damages are
compensatory while in absolute liability, they are exemplary. This was probably laid down by
the court in wake of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, where exemplary damages were awarded [450
crores].

The entire issue of absolute liability in India must be understood in the context of the Bhopal Gas
Tragedy, as this was a landmark case in which more than 3000 people lost their lives [Basically
that the government, in order to deter future industry players from shirking their duty to the
public, enacted this form of liability which was extremely strict and imposed huge damages.]

Name of Case Facts of the Case


Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v The petitioners filed a PIL stating that
Union of India industrial units were causing environmental
pollution which endangered the lives of
people and violated Art. 21. The court applied
the doctrine of absolute liability and upheld a
‘polluter-pay’ principle and that the
expenditure incurred on restoring the
environment to its prior condition must be
borne by the industry.

You might also like