UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES,DEHRAUN, SCHOOL OF LAW

The Strict liability and judicial liability, their judicial perspective

Arnav Kadian
I. INTRODUCTION
In 1868, the concept of strict liability evolved in the case of Ryland’s v. Fletcher, which specifies that an individual who
preserves dangerous substances on his property is liable for the escape and harm of those substances. Going into the
facts, F had a mill on its ground, and F constructed a reservoir on its land to fuel the mill. The reservoir water was
flooding coal mines operated by R due to a certain tragedy. R lodged a lawsuit against F subsequently. The Court found
the defendant to have created the reservoir at his own expense, and, if an accident occurs, the defendant is responsible
for the accident and escape of the material. In legislation, strict liability is a standard of responsibility which may apply in
a criminal or civil context. A regulation setting out strict liability requires an individual personally liable for the harm and
loss of any wrongdoing and omission (including fault in criminal law terms, typically the presence of mens rea). No proof
of guilt, negligence or motive is required under strict liability. Of tort law (in particular, product liability), corporate law
and criminal law, strict liability takes precedence. The most critical strict liability regime for analyzing the advantages and
disadvantages of strict liability as applicable to product liability see product liability. In the tort rule, the imposition of
responsibility on a party without identifying any blame is a rigid responsibility (such as negligence or tortious intent). The
plaintiff just has to show that the wrong has occurred and the defendant is liable. The statute imposes absolute
responsibility on cases it deems potentially risky. This discourages careless conduct and unnecessary damage by
requiring prosecutors to take all the precautions available. It also makes court rulings in these cases simplified and
speeded up. In strict cases of liability, where the complainant may not have to show a fault, the defendant may contend
that the protection of the failure was a consequence of the conduct of the claimant and not the substance, that is, no
presumption of a flaw can be made merely because there is an accident. If the complainant may demonstrate that the
defect was known by the defendant when the harm happened, the claimant in some jurisdictions can be given further
punitive damages. This paper analyses the concepts of strict and absolute liability by discussing landmark judgments,
while also covering the various aspects of both of these principles.”

The rule of Absolute liability was laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court of India in the case of M.C. Mehta V UOI1
and Bhopal Gas Leak2 case. Where the Hon'ble Apex Court maximize the limit of rule of Ryland V. Fletcher. The rule laid
down by the SC is much wider with respect to the rule laid down by House of Lords. By Explaining the rule of No fault
liability3 Blackburn J. said that "We think that the rule of the law is that the 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."4

1
1987 SCR (1) 819
2
AIR (1989)(1)SCC 674: AIR 1992 SC 248
3
Dr.S.K.Kapoor on Law of Torts 7th Edition pg.272
4
The Rule in Ryland’s v. Fletcher. Part I by Bohlen, Francis H. (1911).
 a) Objectives

• To understand the concept of strict and absolute liability through discussion of landmark judgments.
• To study the rules of strict and absolute liability in detail, i.e., in terms of essentials, exceptions, defenses available, etc

b) Hypothesis
• H0: There is no exception to the rule of strict liability.
• H1: There are certain exceptions to the rule of strict liability.”

c) Research Question

The principle of no-fault (strict and absolute) liability, their judicial perspective

d) Research Methodology

The proposed study is founded on secondary data, gathered from previously published research papers and
other external sources that address different research questions related to the concept of no-fault based
liability. The research for some of these studies was done primarily while some of these were based on
secondary data.” “The information gathered for this research is qualitative in nature, and it is intended to
reexamine data sets in order to address the current research question of how the evolution of no fault
liability occurred. Through a case study of the landmark judgments, it aims to understand the principles of
strict and absolute liability and their application in the Indian legal system.”

NEED TO MODIFY THE 19TH CENTURY RULE

The Modern Position of Rule of Ryland V Fletcher

The rule of Strict Liability5 was subject to many exceptions therefore practically very little ruled was left. The old rule
being with many exceptions was not capable to make any individual strictly liable for his negligence. Therefore it was
essential to make harder rule with same purpose. Indian judiciary's View By analyzing the need to modify the 19th
century rule of Strict Liability the apex court of India in M.C. Mehta case stated that "Moreover the principle so
established in Ryland v. Fletcher of strict liability cannot be used in the modern world, as the very principle was evolved
in 19th century, and in the period when the industrial revolution has just begun, this two century old principle of
tortuous liability cannot be taken as it is in the modern world without modifications"6 . Justice Bhagwati also stated that
the rule of strict liability was evolved in 19th century, the time when nature industrial developments was at primary
stage, in today’s modern industrial society where hazardous or inherently dangerous industries are necessary to carry
out development programme, thus this old rule cannot be held relevant in present day context. Also one cannot feel
inhibited by this rule which was evolved in the context of totally different social and economic structure.7 The Division
Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court also in the case of K. Nagireddi V. Union of India8 emphasised the need to modify
the old principle and expressed its view that "In India the general rule of Ryland V. Fletcher is accepted, though the
principle is needed to be modified in its application to the Indian consideration."

5
The rule was formulated by Blackburn, J. in Exchequer Chamber in Fletcher v Rylands
6
W.V.H Rogers, WINFIELD AND JOLOWICZ TORTS, 8th ed. 2010 pp. 248
7
ibid MC Mehta case
8
AIR 1982 AP 119.
Why the old Rule was inappropriate in Indian Perspective

High Industrialization Growth

The Indian economy is highly developing economy. The Rule of strict liability is very old one. The Old Rule evaluates
when there was very low industrial development so the old rule cannot be found appropriate in highly growing economy
like India.

Agriculture use of land

In India the land is mostly used for land. Therefore it is appropriate to store the water in big tank for the purpose of
irrigation. The same thing do not prevails in the country from which it decided. Therefore it does not fit in Indian
perspective.

Very old rule not appropriate in present world

The old rule was given in 19th century, about more than one 150 years ago, when the social and economical condition
was totally different. Therefore it was necessary to make rule as per present requirement.

Difference between Strict Liability and Absolute Liability

The difference between Strict and Absolute liability rules was laid down by Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of
India, where the court explains as:

Firstly, In Absolute Liability only those enterprises shall be held liable which are involved in hazardous or inherently
dangerous activities, this implies that other industries not falling in the above ambit shall be covered under the rule of
strict liability.

Secondly, the escape of a dangerous thing from one’s own land is not necessary; it means that the rule of absolute
liability shall be applicable to those injured within the premise and person outside the premise.

Thirdly, the rule of Absolute liability does not have an exception, whereas as some exception were provided in rule of
Strict Liability. Also in the case of Union of India V. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar9 the view of constitutional bench was that
the rule of MC Mehta is not subject to any type of exception.

Fourthly, the Rule of Ryland V Fletcher apply only to the non natural use of land but the new rule of absolute liability
apply to even the natural use of land. If a person uses a dangerous substance which may be natural use of land & if such
substance escapes, he shall be held liable even though he have taken proper care.

Further, the extent of damages depends on the magnitude and financial capability of the institute. Supreme Court also
contended that , The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to ensure that the hazardous or inherently
dangerous activities in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest standards of safety and security and if
any harm results on account of such negligent activity, the enterprise/institute must be held absolutely liable to
compensate for any damage caused and no opportunity is to given to answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken
all reasonable care and that the harm caused without any negligence on his part10 .

9
(2008) 9 SCC 527: (2008) 2 KLT 700
10
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal : Law of Tort 26th edition pg 520
II. RESEARCH ANALYSIS
The first part of the analysis discusses the landmark case of Rylands v. Fletcher, which laid down the principle of strict
liability. It then studies the essentials and exceptions to the rule of strict liability. Further, it explores the landmark case
of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India to understand the concept of absolute liability and then gives some insight into the
essentials of the same.”

A. Strict Liability
The rule of strict liability was laid down in the year 1868. According to this rule, in this case, it was laid down that
any person keeping any hazardous substance on his premises would be held liable if that substance escapes
from there and harms others. At that point in time, it would be irrelevant, that whether the defendant has taken
due care whether he was negligent or not. Under this principle, the person would be held liable even if he had
taken proper care, provided there are certain exceptions under which defendant can run off his liability.”

Rylands v. Fletcher

➢ Facts: There were two men living next to each other, Rylands and Fletcher. Fletcher owned a mill for whose
energy requirement; he constructed a water reservoir on his land. To get this work done, he had hired
independent contractors and engineers. There were old unused shafts under the site of the reservoir which the
engineers didn’t notice and thus did not block them. Due to the negligence of the contractors, the shafts that led
way to Rylands land burst when water was filled in the reservoir. This caused huge damage and loss to Ryland as
the water entered into his coal mine. Thus, Ryland filed a suit against Fletcher.
➢ Issues: The question was rather brief: should a litigant be put at risk, regardless of whether it was someone
else's act, which resulted in an aspect being removed on his territory? It was remarkable in light of the fact that
there was no carelessness or expectation on part of the litigant.
➢ Judgment: The House of Lords dismissed the supplication of the respondent and held him at liable for every one
of the damages to Rylands' mine. As per the rule set by this case, if a man expedites his territory and keeps there
any hazardous thing, a thing which is probably going to do insidiousness on the off chance that it gets away, he
will be at first sight liable to the harm caused by its escape despite the fact that he had not been careless in
keeping it there. Regardless of there being no blame or carelessness with respect to the litigant, he was held at
liable since he kept some unsafe thing on his territory and the said hazardous thing has gotten away from his
property and caused harm.
➢ Analysis: According to the rule set by this case, if a person brings on his land and keeps there any dangerous
thing, a thing which is likely to do mischief if it escapes, he will be prima facie answerable to the damage caused
by its escape even though he had not been negligent in keeping it there. The liability arises not because there
was any fault or negligence on the part of a person, but because he kept some dangerous thing on his land and
the same has escaped from there and caused damage. Since, in such a case the liability arises even without any
negligence on the part of the defendant, it is known as the rule of strict liability. Therefore, this is one of the
most important landmark judgments in the history of the legal system since it led to the formulation of a new
concept, a new idea and thus a new principle- the rule of the strict liability. Based upon his principles, there
were certain qualifications given to decide whether a liability is strict liability or not. Only after these essential
qualifications being satisfied, a liability can be termed as strict liability.
B. Essentials of Strict Liability

➢ Dangerous substance: This implies that only if anything that escaped from the property was dangerous
would the defendant be responsible for the damages. The term "dangerous" means here that some kind of
misery would possibly occur if it leaves the defendant's territory. In the above example, it was the gathered
water in the Fletcher pool that was toxic. The law states that objects such as petrol, electricity, bombs, flag
poles, harmful smoke, vibration, yew trees, sewage and even rough wires can also be considered to be
hazardous if escaped from the owner's premises.
➢ Escape: Another essential of feature of Strict Liability is escape which states that all the things which causes
harm to another person if escaped from the property of the person using it and should not be in reach of
the person. For example, if a person A has grown some dangerous plants which may cause serious harm to
any person or animal consuming it. If a person B’s Sheep ate that plant because some of them have been
fallen in B’s land so, in this case A is responsible to compensate B for his loss but if B’s Sheep enters A’s land
and ate that plant then A is not liable for the loss.
➢ Non-natural use: It means that if a stored water is used for a natural use like domestic purpose, then a
person cannot be held liable for any harm occurred due to it, but if it is used for non- natural use like in the
case of Rylands Vs. Fletcher, the defendant used the land for making of reservoir to benefit its mill and
which created danger for others and due to which he was liable for the loss occurred to the plaintiff.

C. Exceptions (defences) to the rule of Strict Liability

➢ Plaintiff’s own fault: Damage caused by the escape due to the plaintiffs own can be considered as a good
defence. That is, if the plaintiff suffers damage by his own intrusion into the defendant’s property, then he
has no right to complain about the damage so caused. Like in a case, the horse of the plaintiff died because
of nibbling the leaves of poisonous trees planted at defendant’s land. It was contended that the horse
intruded in defendants’ property where he ate leaves and therefore defendant won’t be held liable for the
same. Moreover, if the damage suffered by the plaintiff was not because of escape but due to its incapacity
to handle during its normal nature also then also the defendant won’t be held liable
➢ Act of God: It has always been considered that where an incident occurs due to an unforeseeable event,
which human body can’t have any control over it, then in such circumstances the person can’t be held
responsible for any liability arising or any incident occurs there out of it. As held in a case which serves as a
good example for the Act of God, in this case, the defendant made artificial lakes over his land by damming
up natural stream. That year there was unusual rain which has never occurred in the human history. Due to
heavy rain the lakes over flooded and has caused damage to plaintiff’s property. It was held that the
defendant couldn’t be made liable for the event so happened was unforeseen and therefore the defendant
couldn’t be held liable under the rule of strict liability.
➢ Act of third-party: If the damage is suffered by the defendant without the fault of the defendant but due to
the third party, who was neither defendant’s servant nor was in any relation to defendant then under those
circumstances if any damage is suffered by plaintiff defendant won’t be held liable. As in a case, where there
was an overflow of water from defendant’s reservoir causing damage to the plaintiff. It was revealed that
the overflow so happened was due to the blocking of drain done by the stranger i.e., the third party. The
defendant was not held liable under strict liability rule.
The research analysis shows that there are some exceptions to the rule of strict liability, hence the null hypothesis, i.e.,
there is no exception to the rule of strict liability, can be rejected, and the alternate hypothesis, i.e., there are certain
exceptions to the rule of strict liability, can be accepted.

D. Absolute Liability
Absolute liability is a concept of law evolved in India, after the case of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India popularly
known by the name of Oleum Gas Leak case. This case was a landmark judgment case for the principle of
absolute liability. This principle is a kind of strict liability with no exception. That is under this principle the
defendant won’t be allowed to plead any defence as there was under Rylands vs. Fletcher case.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India

➢ Facts: On the fourth and the sixth of December, 1985 in Delhi, there was serious spillage of oleum gas which
this occurred in one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries, which had a place with the Delhi
Cloth Mills Ltd. Because of this, a backer honing in the Tis Hazari Court had kicked the bucket and numerous
others were affected by the same. A writ appeal to by method for open intrigue suit (PIL) was conveyed to
the court.
➢ Issues: It was challenged that if every one of the tragedies emerging from the direct of the huge production
lines take after the control of strict liability, they will fall under the exemptions and escape scot free for the
harm they have caused in the lead of their action.
➢ Judgment: The Court had noticed this was the second instance of expansive scale spillage of a fatal gas in
India inside the time of a year in India, as a year sooner in excess of 3000 individuals had passed on because
of the spillage of gas from the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal and lakhs of others were subjected to different
sorts of ailments. On the off chance that the control of strict risk set down in Rylands v. Fletcher was
connected to such circumstances, at that point the individuals who had built up hazardous and dangerous
businesses in and around thickly populated regions could get away from the obligation for the destruction
caused in this manner by arguing some exceptions. The Supreme Court subsequently developed another
administer – the run of "Absolute Liability", as authored by the then Chief Justice of India PN Bhagwati.
➢ Analysis: The law so laid by the English govt. in case of Rylands v. Fletcher was justifiable according to the
demands of law at that time. But it is not necessary or binding to the Indian government to strictly follow
the rule so laid in the late 19th century because in the modern industrial society with highly developed
scientific knowledge and technology, where it is necessary to run hazardous or inherently dangerous
industries as a part of the development programme. This rule was laid in the 19th century when this type of
development in science and technology has not taken place as compared to today’s economy and social
structure. Law needs to be kept changing according to the needs of the society and evolving social structure.
Law cannot afford to remain static. We need to evolve new principles and laid down new and amended
rules which could adequately deal with the problems of a new and industrialized economy. We cannot allow
judicial thinking to be restricted to the laws laid down in England or any other country. Therefore, the
principle of absolute liability was laid down.

E. Rules for establishing absolute liability

➢ Hazardous or inherently dangerous activities: According to the rule of absolute liability, if any person is
engaged in an inherently dangerous or hazardous activity, and if any harm is caused to any person due to
any accident which occurred during carrying out such inherently dangerous and hazardous activity, then the
person who is carrying out such activity will be held absolutely liable.
 ➢ Escape not necessary: The escape of a dangerous thing from one’s own land is not necessary; it means that
the rule of absolute liability shall be applicable to those injured within the premise and person outside the
premise.
➢ No exception: In Strict Liability there are certain exceptions and if a case comes under that exception, then
the defendant is not liable for the act. Absolute Liability is the one in which defendant is liable to pay
compensation, he cannot take the defence of any of the exceptions.
➢ Applies to Non-Natural and Natural uses of land: The rule of Ryland v. Fletcher applies only to the non-
natural use of land but the new rule of absolute liability applies to even the natural use of land. If a person
uses a dangerous substance which may be natural use of land & if such substance escapes, he shall be held
liable even though he has taken proper care.
➢ Extent of Damages: The extent of damages depends on the magnitude and financial capability of the
institute. Supreme Court also contended that , The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to
ensure that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activities in which it is engaged must be conducted with
the highest standards of safety and security and if any harm results on account of such negligent activity, the
enterprise/institute must be held absolutely liable to compensate for any damage caused and no
opportunity is to given to answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the
harm caused without any negligence on his part.

III. FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS

(A) Findings
• Provisions are less regarding absolute and strict liability.
• There is a lack of negligence on the part of the legislature.
• Punishments are less for absolute and strict liability.
(B) Suggestions
• There should be more provisions regarding absolute and strict liability.
• There should be no negligence on the part of the legislature.
• Punishments should be made more for absolute and strict liability.

IV. CONCLUSION
Absolute legal responsibility for an injury that can be imposed on the wrongdoer without proof of carelessness
or fault. With the development of the scientific technology the need for the inherently hazardous substance
increasing, in order to meet the development program, but, with this simultaneously the law of India is also
indulging into the theory of the “welfare state”. So to protect its people the court of India is more stringent &
rigorous in its approach to adopt the Strict Liability principle, comparatively to the England. So, in a crime of
strict liability (criminal) or absolute liability, a person could be guilty even if there was no intention to commit a
crime. The difference between strict and absolute liability is whether the defense of a mistake of fact is
available: in a crime of absolute liability, a mistake of fact is not a defense11. If an industry or enterprise is
engaged in some inherently dangerous activity from which it is deriving commercial gain and that activity is
capable of causing catastrophic damage then the industry officials are absolutely liable to pay compensation to
the aggrieved parties. The industry cannot plead that all safety measures were taken care of by them and that
there was negligence on their part. They will not be allowed any exceptions neither can they take up any
defense like that of ‘Act of God’ or ‘Act of Stranger12 The rule of strict liability and absolute liability can be

11
Alpana Sharma “Strict Liability” https://www.legalindia.com/strict-liability-project
12
Shramanadwibedi “A Critical Analysis of Strict and Absolute Liability http://www.legalservicesindia.com /article/article/strictand-
absolute-liability-2155-1.html
viewed as exception. A man is made subject just when he is to be at fault. In any case, the guideline overseeing
these two principles is that a man can be made at risk even without his fault. This is known as the principles of
“no fault liability”. Tort is a common wrong for which the cure is a precedent-based law activity for unliquidated
harms and which isn't solely the rupture of an agreement or the break of a trust or other just fair commitment.
There are numerous standards representing the law of torts. For the most part, a man is subject for his own
wrongful acts and one doesn't cause any liability for the act done by others. In the event that an individual
commits a fault, he is at risk for it. In any case, there is a rule which asserts an individual liable without his being
to fault.

V. BIBLIOGRAPHY
• https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2359084
• https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2960327
• https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2894455
• https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3375061
• https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3707110
• https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3697451
• https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3792715
• https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a938b3d60d03e5f6b82b9ef
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1486949/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_liability
• http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Strict-and-Absolute-Liability-A-critique-
1451.asp#.VbzoAflViko
• http://www.manupatra.com/