Scribd
Upload
4 views

Strict Liability

The document discusses the principles of strict and absolute liability, primarily focusing on the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, which established that individuals keeping hazardous substances are liable for any damage caused by their escape, regardless of negligence. It outlines essential conditions for strict liability, including the presence of dangerous substances, their escape, and non-natural use of land, while also detailing exceptions such as the plaintiff's fault, acts of God, and actions of third parties. The document emphasizes that liability is imposed based on the nature of the substance and its potential to cause harm, rather than the conduct of the person keeping it.

Uploaded by

prishamalhotra2006
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
4 views

Strict Liability

The document discusses the principles of strict and absolute liability, primarily focusing on the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, which established that individuals keeping hazardous substances are liable for any damage caused by their escape, regardless of negligence. It outlines essential conditions for strict liability, including the presence of dangerous substances, their escape, and non-natural use of land, while also detailing exceptions such as the plaintiff's fault, acts of God, and actions of third parties. The document emphasizes that liability is imposed based on the nature of the substance and its potential to cause harm, rather than the conduct of the person keeping it.

Uploaded by

prishamalhotra2006
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 13

STRICT LIABILITY

AND
ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
STRICT LIABILITY
 The principle of strict liability evolved in the case of Rylands v
Fletcher.
 In the year 1868, the principle of strict liability states that any
person who keeps hazardous substances on his premises will be held
responsible if such substances escape the premises and causes any
damage.
 Going into the facts of the case, F had a mill on his land, and to
power the mill, F built a reservoir on his land.
 Due to some accident, the water from the reservoir flooded the coal
mines owned by R. Subsequently, R filed a suit against F.
 The Court held that the defendant built the reservoir at his risk, and
in course of it, if any accident happens then the defendant will be
liable for the accident and escape of the material.
 Going by the principle laid in this case, it can be said that if a person
brings on his land and keeps some dangerous thing, and such a
thing is likely to cause some damage if it escapes then such person
will be answerable for the damaged caused.
 The person from whose property such substance escaped will be
held accountable even when he hasn’t been negligent in keeping the
substance in his premises.
 The liability is imposed on him not because there is any negligence
on his part, but the substance kept on his premises is hazardous and
dangerous.
 Based on this judicial pronouncement, the concept of strict liability
came into being.
 There are some essential conditions which should be fulfilled to
categorize a liability under the head of strict liability.
ESSENTIALS OF STRICT
LIABILITY
DANGERO NON-
US NATURAL
SUBSTANC USE
E
ESCAPE
 DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES

The defendant will be held strictly liable only if a “dangerous”


substances escapes from his premises.
For the purpose of imposing strict liability, a dangerous substance can
be defined as any substance which will cause some mischief or harm if
it escapes. Things like explosives, toxic gasses, electricity, etc. can be
termed as dangerous things.

 ESCAPE

One more essential condition to make the defendant strictly liable is


that the material should escape from the premises and shouldn’t be
within the reach of the defendant after its escape.
 NON-NATURAL USE

To constitute a strict liability, there should be a non-natural use of the land.


In the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, the water collected in the reservoir was
considered to be a non-natural use of the land.
Storage of water for domestic use is considered to be natural use. But
storing water for the purpose of energizing a mill was considered non-
natural by the Court.
When the term “non-natural” is to be considered, it should be kept in mind
that there must be some special use which increases the danger to others.
Supply of cooking gas through the pipeline, electric wiring in a house, etc. is
considered to be the natural use of land.
For instance, if the defendant lights up a fire in his fireplace and a spark
escapes and causes a fire, the defendant will not be held liable as it was a
natural use of the land.
 These three condition needs to be satisfied simultaneously to
constitute a strict liability.
ACT OF
CONSENT
THE
OF THE
THIRD
PLAINTIFF
PARTY

EXCEPTION TO THE RULE


OF STRICT LIABILITY
PLAINTIFF’ ACT OF
S FAULT GOD
 PLAINTIFF’S FAULT
If the plaintiff is at fault and any damage is caused, the defendant
wouldn’t be held liable, as the plaintiff himself came in contact with the
dangerous thing.
In the judicial pronouncement of PONTING V NOAKES (1849) 2 QB 281
The plaintiff’s horse died after it entered the property of the defendant
and ate some poisonous leaves. The Court held that it was a wrongful
intrusion, and the defendant was not to be held strictly liable for such
loss.

 ACT OF GOD
The phrase “act of God” can be defined as 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. The defendant wouldn’t be liable for the loss if the dangerous
substance escaped because of some unforeseen and natural event which
couldn’t have been controlled in any manner.
ACT OF GOD
 According to Salmond, act of God includes all those acts which a man
cannot avoid even by taking reasonable care.
 Such accidents are the result of natural forces and are unconnected
with the agency of man.
 Thus when the damage, loss or injury is caused on account of
operation of natural forces or phenomena, such as heavy downpour,
storms, floods, earthquakes, droughts etc are said to be Act of God.

 NICHOLS VS. MARSLAND, (1872) 2 X. D.1.


The defendant has a number of artificial lakes on his land. Extraordinary
rain such as had never been witnessed in living memory caused the
banks of the lakes to burst and the escaping water carried away four
bridges belonging to the plaintiff. It was held that the plaintiff's bridges
were swept by an act of God and the defendant was not liable.
 RAMALINGA NADAR V. NARAYANA REDDIAR A.I.R. 1971 KERALA
197
The plaintiff had booked goods with the defendant for transportation. The goods
are looted by a mob, the prevention of which was beyond control of defendant. It
was held that event beyond control of the defendant cannot be said Act of God. It
was held that the destructive acts of an unruly mob cannot be considered an Act
of God.

 BLYTH V. BIRMINGHAM WATER WORKS CO, (1856) 11 EX CH 781


The defendants had constructed water pipes which were reasonably strong
enough to withstand severe frost. There was an unprevented severe frost that year
causing the pipes to burst resulting in severe damage to the plaintiff's property. It
was held that though frost is a natural phenomenon, the occurrence of an
unforeseen severe frost can be attributed to an act of God, thus the relieving the
defendants of any liability.
 ACT OF THE THIRD PARTY
The rule also doesn’t 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. But where the acts of the third party
can be foreseen, the defendant must take due care. Otherwise, he will
be held responsible.
For instance, in the case of BOX V JUBB LR 4 EX DIV 76
Where the reservoir of the defendant overflowed because a third party
emptied his drain through the defendant’s reservoir, the Court held
that the defendant wouldn’t be liable.

 CONSENT OF THE PLAINTIFF


This exception follows the principle of violenti non fit injuria.

You might also like