4/5/24, 10:08 AM OneNote

Theory of strict liability

Strict liability, also known as absolute liability, holds individuals accountable for certain harms or
violations of rights, regardless of their intention or negligence. Unlike cases of negligence where liability
is based on fault, strict liability imposes responsibility irrespective of the defendant's level of care or
caution.
In strict liability cases, the injured party is not required to prove the defendant's intention or
negligence. Even if the defendant exercised the utmost care, they can still be held liable for the harm
caused. The doctrine of strict liability was established in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, where the court
articulated the principle that individuals can be held strictly liable for certain hazardous activities or
conditions, such as keeping wild animals, dangerous premises or substances, electricity, water, or
explosives. This principle applies to situations where there is a risk of escape or harm to others,
regardless of the defendant's precautions.
The objective of strict liability is not to discourage individuals from engaging in hazardous activities but
to ensure that they bear the responsibility for any harm caused as a result of their actions. While
individuals are free to undertake adventurous activities, they do so at their own risk and must be
prepared to compensate those who suffer harm due to their actions.

Salmond categorizes cases of strict liability into three main groups. This classification helps to clarify the
scope of strict liability and its application in different contexts.
The strict liability may be divided into the following three headings:

1. Mistake of law.
2. Mistake of fact.
3. Accident.
1. Mistake of Law:
The principle that ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of law is no excuse) is followed in almost all
the legal systems. A person who has committed a wrongful act will not be heard to say that he did not
know that it was forbidden by law, or, in other words, he did not know the law. This is an irrebuttable
presumption that every person knows the law of the land. This is an instance of strict liability. The law
will not go to make an inquiry as to whether the person taking the defence of the ignorance of law
actually knew it or not.
First, that law is definite and knowable and it is the duty of every person to know the law concerning his
rights and duties.
Second, law in most of the cases is based on common sense, or in other words, it is based on the
principle of natural right and wrong which generally every person knows. A person might not be
acquainted with the Indian Penal Code, but he knows that to kill a man intentionally or to steal is a
wrong.
Third, there shall be evidential difficulties in accepting the defence of the ignorance of the law. In most
of the cases, the wrongdoers in the first instance will take this defence and the court will have to
enquire as to whether the wrongdoer knew the law or not before going into the merits of the case. This
will create great difficulties before the courts and it will hamper the course of the administration of
justice.
2. Mistake of fact:
The principle about it is that ignorantia facit excusat (ignorance of the fact is excuse). It means that a
person is not liable for a wrongful act if he has done it under a mistake of fact. In other words, mistake is
a valid defence against a wrongful act. But this principle applies only in case of a criminal wrong and not
a civil wrong. In civil wrongs, except in few cases, the mistake of fact is not a valid ground for discharging
a person from liability.

But in criminal law, the strict liability for a mistake of fact is only in exceptional cases (IPC Act 1860,
section 76 to 79). An example of such exception or strict liability is that if a person kidnaps a girl below
16, he is always liable, although he honestly believed that she was above 16.

3. Accident:
A person is not liable for an act taking place accidentally. Accident differs from a mistake of fact. Every
unintentional act is done by mistake when the consequences of the act are intentional, the mistake is
only about the circumstances and in that respect it is unintentional.

For example, if I arrest A taking him to be B, it is a mistake of fact. In this case the consequence that is
arrest is intentional but there is a mistake about the circumstances and I was to arrest B and not A. So
the arrest of A is unintentional. An act is said to be done accidentally when it is unintentional in respect
of its consequences also.

Another example, if I am cutting wood with an axe, and the axe slips away from my hand and falls upon
the head of a man and causes his death, it is accident because the consequence was never desired.

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=5866E7812FB86390%21168&page=Edit&wd=target%28Jurisprudence.one%7C681ba764-19c8-411c-9b0a-8ff24… 1/2
4/5/24, 10:08 AM OneNote
Essential Conditions of Strict Liability:
1. Dangerous/ Hazardous Substance – The defendant will be held strictly liable only if a “dangerous”
substance escape from his premises. The things which the defendant is holding in his land should be
dangerous to others, tending to cause harm to the public at large.
2. Escapes from land – For strict liability to apply, it's crucial that the harmful substance in the
defendant's possession escapes onto another person's property, causing harm or damage. This escape
of the dangerous object from the defendant's premises leading to harm to the plaintiff's property
establishes liability under strict liability principles.
3. Non-natural use of land – It should be kept in mind that there must be some special use or purpose
which increases the danger to others. The use of such land should be different from the ordinary use of
it.
Exceptions to the rule of Strict Liability:
There are several circumstances where the concept of Strict liability does not apply,
1. Plaintiff’s Fault – If the plaintiff suffers damage by his own intrusion into the defendant’s property
then all his rights to complain about the damage so caused are nullified.
2. Act of God – An event which is beyond the control of any human agency. Such acts happen exclusively
due to natural reasons and cannot be prevented even while exercising caution and foresight. Such acts
which occur due to an unforeseeable event do not give any right to the plaintiff to complain about the
damage suffered.
3. Act of the Third Party – This rule also does not 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 an act was done by such party, the
plaintiff cannot claim his rights.
4. Consent of the Plaintiff – This exception follows the principle of volenti non fit injuria. This means in
situations where the plaintiff has voluntarily consented to suffer the harm for the common benefit of
both, then the defendant would not be held liable

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=5866E7812FB86390%21168&page=Edit&wd=target%28Jurisprudence.one%7C681ba764-19c8-411c-9b0a-8ff24… 2/2