Strict and

Absolute Liability
 Meaning
•In some cases, a person may be liable even
though
•he is not negligent, or
•he does not have intention to cause harm,
or
•sometimes he may have taken positive
efforts to avoid the damage.
•No fault liability
 Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868)
• D constructed a water reservoir on his land for
the purpose of his mill through independent
contractor
• There were unused (abandoned) mine shafts
under the reservoir which were not known to the
D
• When water was allowed to accumulate in the
reservoir, it broke into the shafts and flooded the
adjacent operative mine of P
 Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868)
• D had no knowledge of the shafts and he was
not negligent but independent contractor should
have taken reasonable steps to block the shafts
• General rule – Principal not liable for the acts of
independent contractor
• Yet, D was held liable even though he was not
negligent
 Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868)
•Justice Blackburn:
•A person who,
•for his own purposes,
•brings on his lands and keeps there,
•anything likely to do mischief if it
escapes,
•must keep it in at his peril, and…
 Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868)
•…and
•if he does not do so,
•is prima facie answerable
•for all the damage
•which is the natural consequence of
its escape.
 Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868)
•He may take following defences:
•Plaintiff’s default (wrongdoer)
•Vis Major – Act of God
•Liability arises in such situations even
without negligence
•Hence, Strict Liability
 Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868): Essentials
•1. Some dangerous thing must be brought
and kept by the defendant on his land
•2. Such dangerous things must have escaped
•3. It must be non-natural use of land
 1. Dangerous Thing: Includes
• Sewage – Tenant v. Goldwin, (1704)
• Water – Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868)
• Rusty Wire – Firth v. Bowling Iron Co. (1878)
• Yew Tree – Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board, (1878)
• Electricity – National Telephone Co. v Baker, (1893)
• Gas – Batcheller v. Tunbridge Wells Gas Co. (1901)
• Noxious fumes – West v. Bristol Tramways Co., (1908)
• Vibrations – Hoare & Co. v. McAlpine & Sons, (1922)
• Flag-pole – Shiffman v. The Grand Priory of St. John, (1936)
• Explosives – Read v. Lyons, (1947)
 2. Escape
•2. Such dangerous thing must have escaped
to the area outside the occupation and
control of defendant
•Yew Tree – Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial
Board, (1878) – Projection of branches from
D’s land to P’s land – P’s cattle dying due to
eating those leaves
 2. Escape
•But what if the P’s horse intrudes over the
boundary of D and dies due to eating of
those leaves?
•No liability as there is no ‘escape’ of the
dangerous thing – Ponting v. Noakes, (1994)
 3. Non-natural Use of Land
•Water collected in the reservoir in such a
huge quantity is non-natural use
•But keeping water for domestic purposes is
natural use– Rickards v. Lothian, (1913)
•Fire in the fire-place of a home – Is it non-
natural use?
• No. – Sochacki v. Sas, (1947)
 3. Non-natural Use of Land
• Growing non-poisonous trees – Noble v. Harrison,
(1926)
• Electric wiring in a house or a shop – Collingwood v.
Home and Colonial Stores Ltd. , (1936)
• Supply of gas in gas pipes in a home – Miller v. Addie
& Sons Collieries, (1934)
• Water installation in a house - Rickards v. Lothian,
(1913)
• All are natural uses of land
 3. Non-natural Use of Land
• Use of explosives (firecrackers) on a maidaan on a day of
festival? Is it natural use?
• Explosive made out of coconut shell (Minnal Gundu)–
instead of rising into the sky – it went sideways and
exploded amongst the crowd – severely injured the plaintiff
• D’s defences–
• (1) An independent contractor was given the
responsibility of firework celebration
• (2) Use of land was natural
• Hence, no liability
 3. Non-natural Use of Land
• Court rejected the defences and applied Rylands rule
• Held - For use and storing of explosives, license is
must under The Explosives Act, 1884;
• D had taken no such license
• Hence, the use by the defendant was non-natural
• Minnal Gundu an extra hazardous object – the very
nature of it involves special danger to others – Hence,
people who keep and use it must be responsible for
any injury
 3. Non-natural Use of Land
• Duty to keep substance without causing injury to
others is ‘non-delegable’ duty
• D cannot escape responsibility by engaging an
independent contractor
• T. C. Balakrishnan Menon v. T. R. Subramanian,
(1968) Kerala HC
 Exceptions to the Rule
•1. Plaintiff the wrongdoer
•2. Act of God
•3. Volenti non fit injuria
•4. Act of third party
•5. Statutory Authority
 1. Plaintiff the wrongdoer
• Ponting v. Noakes, (1849)
• P’s horse intruded over the D’s property and
ate poisonous leaves
• Similarly, P cannot recover when the damage is
not only because of D’s dangerous thing
• but because of unusual sensitiveness of P or
P’s property
 2. Act of God
•Nichols v. Marsland, (1876)
• D created artificial lakes by building dam on
his land
• Due to very heavy rainfall, heaviest in human
memory, dam broke and P’s 4 bridges got
washed away
• Dam was sufficiently strong for ordinary
rainfall
• D not liable
 2. Act of God
• Such exception not available
• in cases of death due to electrocution
• because of falling of electric wire
• due to storm, cyclone, etc.
• S. K. Shangrung Lamkang v. State of Manipur, (2008)
SC –
• Defence – Fall of electric wire due to lightning storm
resulting in breaking of a tension disc insulator
• Rejected
 3. Consent of the plaintiff
•Carstairs v. Taylor, (1871)
• P hired ground floor of a building from D –
Upper floor occupied by D himself
• Water stored on upper floor for the use of both
P and D – common water tank
• Without D’s fault, water leaked to the ground
floor and damaged P’s goods
• D was not held liable
 4. Act of third party
• Box v. Jubb, (1879)
• Overflow from D’s reservoirs was caused due to
blocking of a drain by strangers – Hence, D not
liable
• Rickards v. Lothian, (1913)
• Strangers blocked the outlet of wash basin and
turned the tap on – overflowing water damaged P’s
goods
• D, not liable
 4. Act of third party
• However, what if the act of the third party can be
reasonably foreseen?
• Northwestern Utilities v. London Guarantee and
Accident Co., (1936)
• D was a public utility co. supplying gas through
pipelines – City authority was constructing sewer
(drainage pipe)
• While doing so, gas pipe was damaged, gas
leaked, caused fire and destroyed a nearby hotel
 4. Act of third party
• Hotel was insured by P.
• D’s defence – Leakage was due to the
fault/negligence of the city authorities (third
party)
• Defence rejected – Everybody knew that city
authority was constructing drainage pipes across
the city
• Hence, the damage could be reasonably foreseen
and prevented by the D
 4. Act of third party
• See also MP Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar,
(2002) SC
 5. Statutory Authority
• General Rule – Act done under the authority of a
statute is a valid defence
• Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Co., (1894)
• D had statutory duty to maintain continuous
supply of water
• A large main pipe burst without negligence of D
and flooded P’s premises
• Held – D not liable
 5. Statutory Authority
• Such defence not available if D is negligent –
• See Northwestern Utilities v. London Guarantee
and Accident Co., (1936)
 Position in Bharat
• Madras Railway Co. v. Zamindar of
Karvetinagaram, (1884) Privy Council
• Huge water storage tanks were used for
hundreds of years by Zamindaar and thousands
of his farmers
• One day, tanks broke and water washed away
three railway bridges of the P
• D was not held liable
 Madras Railway Co. v. Zamindar of Karvetinagaram,
(1884) Privy Council
• Peculiar Indian conditions – Existence of water
tanks absolute necessity – not only for D’s estate
but for survival of thousands of farmers
• Without those, land would be a desert –
enormous benefit conferred on the public
• Hence, D liable only of he is negligent, else no.
 K. Nagireddi v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh,
(1982)
• P had planted 285 fruit-bearing trees on his land
• Near his land, Nagarjuna Sagar dam was built
• Due to back waters of the dam, all the fruit trees
absorbed excess water underground than was
necessary and slowly died
• P’s case – D had not built concrete walls to
prevent the water from spreading underground
 K. Nagireddi v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh,
(1982)
• Court rejected the argument and held –
• Building a dam was absolutely necessary and
had enormous benefits
• Plus, it could not be proved that there must be
concrete on the floor or sides of the catchment
area of the dam
• Both the cases came under the exceptions of
Rylands v. Fletcher rule
 Position in Bharat
• Supreme Court has approved and followed
Rylands v. Fletcher rule in the following cases-
• Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, (1987)
• M. C. Mehta v. UOI, (1987) (Absolute Liability)
• Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990)
• D. K. Basu v. State of WB, (1997)
• Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance, (2001)
• M. S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, (2001)
Bhopal Gas
Leak
Disaster
 Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster

Union Carbide India Limited, Pesticide

Plant in 1986 (1 year later)
Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster

MIC plant in 2008

 Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster

Tank E610 (the culprit tank) in

2010
Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster

Protest in 2010
 Bhopal Gas Tragedy
• World’s worst industrial disaster
• Affected 5 lakh+ people
• Dead people – Official figure – 4000; Actual
15000+
• Union Carbide India Limited – Public Co. owned
51% by Union Carbide Corporation (American
Co.) and 49% Indian govt. controlled banks and
general public of India
 Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Earlier Leaks
• 1976 – Complaint by local trade union of
pollution
• 1981 – A worker died within 72 hours of
accidentally inhaling phosgene gas
• Jan. 1982 – 24 workers (without any protective
equipment) admitted in a hospital due to inhaling
of phosgene
 Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Earlier Leaks
• Feb. 1982 – 18 workers admitted in hospital due
to inhaling Methyl Isocyanate (MIC)
• Aug. 1982 – Chemical engineer worker suffered
30% burns due to MIC
• Oct. 1982 – 3 workers admitted to hospital due to
MIC
• 1983 and 1984 – Leaks of MIC, chlorine,
monomethylamine, phosgene, carbon
tetrachloride, etc.
 Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Gas Leak
• 3 underground tanks – 68,000 litres storage
capacity of liquid MIC
• By 1984, one of the tanks had stopped
functioning properly, plant had to be closed for
maintenance; repairs were done, but still some
defects remained
• 2 December 1984 – Gas leak around 1 a.m.
• 40,000 litres of MIC leaked within 2 hours
 Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Alarm System
• Two alarms tied together
• Factory alarm – internal alarm, within the
factory only
• Public – Outside alarm, warning the nearby
residents
• These two alarms were detached in 1982 – (why
to unnecessarily trouble/scare people for minor
leaks?)
• Hence, public alarm was quickly turned off
 Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Call to police
• No immediate call from the co.; call from a town
inspector around 1 a.m.
• Police called co. – Response – “Everything is
okay”, “we don’t know what has happened”
• No timely exchange of information from the co.
to police
 Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Health effects
• Coughing, severe eye irritation, feeling of
suffocation, burning in lungs, breathlessness,
stomach pains, vomiting
• People started running away from the factory –
but those who ran inhaled more gas than the
others; plus children inhaled more because MIC
is twice denser than air
• Thousand of people died till morning
 Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Health effects
• Those who didn’t die suffered from lung cancer,
blindness, kidney failure and other disabilities
 Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Govt. response
• Inquiry – CSIR and CBI
• UCC Chairman and CEO Warren Anderson came
to India along with a technical team and went to
Bhopal
• Warren was immediately arrested but kept at
UCC guest house (house arrest)
• Within 24 hours, was flown from Bhopal to Delhi
in a govt. aircraft and then back to the U.S. –
never returned ever
 The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of
Claims) Act, 1985
• Consolidated all the suits of all the victims
• A suit was filed by India in the U.S. – but it was
dismissed – the U.S. was not a proper forum
• Legal proceedings went on until 1988 where the
SC asked both the parties to start with a clean
slate
• Feb. 1989 – ₹750 crores (US$ 470 million) was
paid by the co. to the GOI – full and final
 ₹ 750 crores
Class No. of Compensation (₹) Total Amount
Cases (₹ cr)

Fatal Cases 3,000 ₹ 1 to ₹ 3 Lakhs 70

Permanent total or partial disability 30,000 ₹ 50,000 to ₹ 2 Lakhs 250

Temporary disability 20,000 ₹ 25,000 to ₹ 1 Lakhs 100

Utmost severe injuries Up to ₹ 4 Lakhs 80

Medical Attention and Rehabilitation 25

Minor injuries, personal belongings, 225

loss of animals, etc.
TOTAL 750
 Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Other things
• 1991 – Warren Anderson was charged with
culpable homicide not amounting to murder –
Was declared as absconder (fugitive)
• India asked for extradition – U.S. declined it on
the ground ‘lack of evidence’
• 1993 – Large amount of compensation still
pending with the govt. – SC ordered immediate
payment
 Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Other things
• 2010 – 7 employees of UCIL convicted for causing
death by negligence
• Non-Executive Chairman, MD, VP, Works
Manager, Production Manager, Plant
Superintendent, Production Assistant
• All were sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and
fined ₹ 1 lakh
• All were released on bail immediately
 Absolute Liability
• M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) SC
• Leak of oleum gas on 4th Dec. 1985 – Shriram
Foods and Fertilizers Industries – Delhi
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL) – art. 32
• One may escape liability by pleading any one of the
exceptions under Rylands v. Fletcher rule
• Hence, SC decided to create a new principle more
suited to such situations
 Absolute Liability
• “Rylands v. Fletcher rule evolved in 19th century at a
time when science and technology had not
developed much; therefore it cannot provide
guidance to present-day situations…
• We, in India, cannot hold our hands back and I
venture to evolve a new principle of liability which
English Courts have not done…
 Absolute Liability
• “An enterprise involved in hazardous/dangerous
industry owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to
the community to see that no one gets injured
because of the danger…
• It is no answer for the enterprise to say that it had
taken all reasonable care and the harm occurred
without any negligence on its part…
 Absolute Liability
• “Such absolute liability is not subject to any of the
exceptions under Rylands v. Fletcher rule