Doctrine of Strict Liability and Absolute Liability

Introduction

Liability is a legal concept. In the Law of Torts, the concept of liability is based on the fundamental principle that it is wrongful to cause harm to other persons, even if specific protections are absent. To be liable in Tort Law is to be legally responsible for causing damage, injury or loss to another person. Generally speaking, if a Court finds that a wrongdoer is liable, the wrongdoer is obliged, at least to some extent, to pay damages to the injured person.

The notion of a ‘Strict and Absolute Liability’ has been a major principle in Tort Law There are certain activities which are very dangerous that constitute a constant threat to person and property. There are two ways to handle such situations

Firstly: The Law might prohibit them altogether,

Secondly: It may ask them to carry on for the sake of Society, but only in accordance with ‘Statutory Rules and Provisions’, which lays down safety measures and provides for sanctions for non-compliance through the way of the ‘Doctrine of Strict Liability.’ Absolute Liability is nothing but applying Strict Liability without any exceptions.

Strict Liability

The rule of Strict Liability originates from the famous English case of Rylands v Fletcher, in the year 1868. This was the fundamental case In establishing the modern ‘doctrine of Strict Liability.’ Strict Liability, also known as ‘No Fault Liability’, is when a defendant is liable for committing an action regardless of what his/her intent or mental state was when committing the action. The imposition of liability on an individual or entity for losses and damages without having the need to prove negligence or mistake.

In Rylands v Fletcher [1]

The defendant owned a mill and wanted to improve its water supply, employed a firm of reputed engineers to contract a reservoir nearby. One day water started overflowing from the reservoir with so much force that it entered the plaintiff’s mine and damaged everything. The engineers who were independent contractors of the defendant were negligent in contracting the reservoir.

Justice Blackburn explained the rule which was to be applied in cases such as this one:

“The person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land, 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, he is prima facie responsible for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff’s default or perhaps, that the escape was the consequence of Vis Major or the Act of God”

If we critically analyse this statement, the inference is that if anyone brings a dangerous object or anything else on his property for his benefit and that thing such as this could create injury in a situation if it gets out of the land, the person is liable for the damage caused, even if the person from whose property such substance has got out has taken enough care and there has been no carelessness in any way.

The liability which is being imposed on the tortfeasor is not because of any negligence on his part, but due to the hazardous and extremely dangerous substance which is kept on his premises. Based on the Court judgement, ‘No Fault Liability’ came into existence.

Essential Elements of Strict Liability

The essential elements of strict liability are listed as follows:

Some Dangerous Thing must have been brought by a person on his land.
The thing thus brought or kept by a person on his land must Escape.
It must be Non-Natural Use of Land.

1. Dangerous Substances

The substance will be regarded as dangerous if an escape can cause mischief or harm to anyone.

i.e: Things like explosives, toxic gases, things likely to pollute water supplies, fire, sewage, vibrations, noxious fumes, rusty wires, etc.

2. Escape

The thing must be out of the premises and control of the defendant. This is one of the essential conditions to make the defendant strictly liable is that the material should escape from the premises and should not be within the reach of the defendant after its escape.

In Reads v Lyons & Co.,(1947) [2]

The plaintiff was employed in the defendant’s Shell factory. Inside the defendant’s premises where the plaintiff was performing her duties, a shell, which was being manufactured there, exploded causing her to be injured.

There was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants even though the shell which had exploded was a dangerous thing.

In this case, the defendant was not held liable, because there was no escape of the thing outside of the defendant’s premises. And therefore the Rule of Ryland v Fletcher did not apply to this case.

3. Non-Natural Use of Land

It is necessary that the dangerous thing kept on the premises be used for non-natural purposes to constitute strict liability.

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 land.’

Noble v Harrison (1926) [3]

In this case, the defendant could not be made liable under the rule in the Ryland v Fletcher case because the growth of trees on one’s land is not a Non-Natural Thing. The limb of the non-poisonous tree rising on the defendant’s land, which overhung on the highway, suddenly broke and fell on the plaintiff’s vehicle passing along the highway. The branch was broken off due to some latent defect.

Exceptions to the Rule of Strict Liability

The rule of Strict liability does not apply in the following circumstances.

1. Natural Use of a thing:

The rule of Ryland v Fletcher applies to the things artificially brought to the land. The rule does not apply in cases where the things are present in their natural form or arise on the land, even though they are dangerous.

In Whalley v Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co.,(1884) [4]

The Court held that the owner of the land is not liable for things which arise naturally, and can be defined as an event which is beyond the control of any human agency.

2. Act of God

Any damage that occurs due to the acts, e.g: tsunamis, tornadoes, earthquakes, extraordinary rainfall etc., does not attract liability.

Nicholas v Marsland (1876) [5]

In this case, the defendant’s artificial lake was flooded due to heavy rainfall, resulting in the plaintiff’s four bridges being washed away. The plaintiff brought an action to recover the damages. The Court held that the defendant was not liable, as the accident was caused by an ‘Act of God.’

3. Act of Third Party

If the escape is caused by a third person without the knowledge or authority of the defendant, provided the defendant is not negligent, not committed a breach of duty to take the necessary precaution against the inference of a third person, the defendant will not be held liable.

Box v Jubb (1879) [6]

The reservoir of the defendant overflowed because of a blockage in the drains by strangers, causing damage to the adjacent properties. Thus, the Court did not claim the defendant to be liable.

4. Statutory Authority

Any act which may be considered a tort can be justifiable if it is authorised by any act or statute. The injured party cannot get any remedy by compensation may be provided for the loss suffered

Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co.,(1894) [7]

In this case, a water main belonging to a Waterworks Company, which had been authorised by the Parliament to lay the main, burst. There had been no negligence on the part of the Waterworks Company. The claimants’ premises were flooded but the Waterworks Company was held to have no liability. The owner of the land is, an exception to the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, not liable for damage caused by works executed under Statutory Authority.

This exception follows the principle of ‘Volenti Non Fit Injuria. Where the

plaintiff has impliedly or expressly consented with the defendant to bear the burden of the harmful situation together, the defendant cannot be held liable for the escape in substance and resulted in harm unless the plaintiff succeeds to prove lack of due care or negligence on the part of the defendant.

In Carstairs v Taylor (1871) [8]

In this case, there was a double-storey building, where the plaintiff acquired the ground floor of the building and the defendant acquired the first floor. There was a leakage of water from the upper floor of the building which the plaintiff and defendant both have agreed to store. The plaintiffs’ goods were damaged due to the leakage. The defendant was at no fault for the leakage. As it was the consented act, the defendant could not be made liable for the damage.

Absolute Liability

The rule of Absolute liability was laid down in one of the historic cases in the Indian Judiciary, the case of M.C Mehta v Union Of India famously known as the Oleum Gas Leak case. The case of M C Mehta is based on the principle of Strict Liability with no exception given and an individual is made absolutely liable for acts.

In simple words, the rule of Absolute Liability can be defined as the rule of Strict Liability minus the exceptions to ‘No Fault Liability’. So we can have a simple formula for Absolute Liability is:

[ABSOLUTE LIABILITY] = [STRICT LIABILITY] - EXCEPTIONS

The principle established in Ryland v Fletcher of Strict Liability cannot be used in the modern world, as the very principle was involved in the 19th Century, and in the period when the Industrial Revolution has just begun, this two-century-old principle of tortious liability cannot be taken as it in the modern world without modifications.

When an industry or enterprise is involved in an inherently dangerous activity or using hazardous substances and deriving commercial benefits out of them, and such an activity is capable of causing damage, then the company officials will be absolutely liable to pay compensation to the aggrieved parties without any defence. They will be held liable for the same and cannot plead that there was no negligence on their part and reasonable care was taken to prevent such an accident.

M C Mehta v Union Of India/Oleum Gas Leak Case [9]

Union Carbide Company set up a plant in Bhopal and manufactured pesticides and such products. On the night of 2nd March 1984, the plant leaked 40 tons of dangerous gas (Methyl Isocyanate) causing harm to numerous people. The claims for compensation were filed by the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association for the people who had suffered damage as a result of the Oleum Gas escape.

The Supreme Court held that the case should be referred to a larger bench because the questions raised involve substantial law issues relating to the interpretation of Articles 21 and 32 of the Indian Constitution. The Court had to interpret Article 32 in order to assess whether a Writ in conjunction with compensation could be awarded. The Private Companies establishing the Right to Protect Life and Freedom were also to be interpreted as being essential in the public interest under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

In Environmental Law Oleum Gas Leak Case is a landmark case since the Supreme Court introduced the principle of Absolute Liability because it felt that the Strict Liability principle was not enough to protect the citizen’s rights.

In the recent case of LG Polymers in Vizag the principle of Absolute Liability, where Styrene had leaked from the chemical plant.

Oleum Gas Leak Case set a precedent for all future cases because it was for the very first time that an industry in India was held solely responsible for an accident and was ordered to pay compensation notwithstanding adopting more stringent safety practices.

Bhopal Gas Tragedy/Union Carbide Corporation v Union Of India [10]

In this case, on 2nd & 3rd December 1984, Bhopal Gas Tragedy took place in which the doctrine of Absolute Liability was upheld by the Court. A case was filed in the American New York District Court as the Union Carbide Company in Bhopal was a branch of the U S based Union Carbide Company.

The Court held that the Company was held liable by applying the principle of Absolute Liability and ordered to pay compensation to the victims.

In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union Of India and Others [11]

Under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, PIL filed for the violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the Right to Live in a Clean and Healthy Environment. The Court upheld the Doctrine of Absolute Liability, here stating that the polluted environment must be restored to a pollution-free one conducive to healthy living by utilising anti-pollution scientific appliances.

The Court held that the Industries were made absolutely liable for paying monetary damages for the restoration of the environment.

Essential Elements of Absolute Liability

1. Dangerous Thing

The liability of escape of a thing from an individual’s land will arise only when the thing which is collected is a dangerous thing that is a thing which is likely to cause damage or injury to other people in person or their property on its escape.

In various cases of Strict Liability, the following things have been held dangerous: a large pool of water, electricity, gas, explosives, fumes, rusty wires etc.

2. Escape

Anything which has caused damage or mischief should have escaped from the area which was under the control of the defendant to come under the ambit of Absolute Liability.

In Read v Lyons and Company (1947) AC 156

In this case, the plaintiff was an employee in the defendant’s manufacturing company. While doing her duty and the accident occurred within the premises during the course of employment, the plaintiff suffered harm. The Court held that the defendant cannot escape from his liability and the strict liability principle is not applicable in this case. The defendant was held liable.

3. Non-Natural Use of Land

In Ryland v Fletcher case, the Court held that collecting water on the land for domestic purposes in the large quantity does not amount to Non-Natural Use of Land, but if one is storing it in large quantities like in a reservoir as was the case in Ryland v Fletcher then it amounts to Non-Natural Use of Land.

In this case, the Court will not hold the defendant liable for his conduct if an issue arises between the defendant and the plaintiff even though the defendant is using the land naturally.

4. Mischief

Under the principle to make the person liable, the plaintiff needs to show that the defendant had done the Non-Natural use of land and escaped the dangerous thing he has on his land which resulted in injury further.

In Charing Cross Electric Supply Co., v Hydraulic Power Co.,(1914) [12]

The Court held that the defendants were held liable in spite of no fault of theirs. The defendant’s duty was to supply water for industrial works but they were unable to keep their mains charged with the minimum required pressure, which led to the bursting of the pipeline at four different places resulting in heavy damage to the plaintiff which was proved with evidence.

Difference Between Strict Liability and Absolute Liability

Basis for Comparison	Strict Liability	Absolute Liability
Meaning	Strict Liability implies the legal responsibility of a person for compensating the injured or aggrieved even when he or she was not at fault or negligent	Absolute Liability arises from inherently hazardous activities like keeping dangerous animals or using explosives.
Talks About	Any person can be made liable.	Only an enterprise can be made liable (commercial objective).
Escape	The escape of a dangerous thing is necessary. The escape of harmful substances is an essential element.	An enterprise can be made responsible even without an escape. It does not really matter whether the harmful substance escapes. Even if any harm is caused inside the premise, the defendant will be held liable.
Exceptions	Certain exceptions are available to the defendant such as the Act of God, Plaintiff is the wrongdoer, Third Party intervention etc.	No defences are available for the defendant.
Payment of Compensation	Nature and quantum of damages. Compensation is determined by the nature and the amount of damage caused.	Exemplary in nature. Compensation paid to the plaintiff is determined on the basis Of the financial stability of the company causing the action that gives rise to Absolute Liability.
Destruction	The destruction is restricted to a certain level.	The destruction is mass destruction.
Activity Causes	Any other Activities.	Hazardous or inherently dangerous activities.
Natural and Non-Natural Use Of Land	Applies to the Non-Natural use of land.	Applies to Non-Natural and Natural Uses of Land.

Suggestions and Conclusion

There are many critics of Tort Law who assert that much of it is an outdated and insufficient vehicle for the compensation of accidental losses, particularly in relation to personal injuries and death and that we need a system of compensation which steers by the principle of the needs of the victim rather than the circumstances in which the loss was suffered.

Laws in accordance with Strict Liability where the individual is responsible even though there is no negligence under the No-Fault Liability, principle derive from the case law in Ryland v Fletcher. In the case of M.C. Mehta v Union of India, principles of Absolute Liability, the Supreme Court found that the offence should not be defended, but the defendant is responsible for the act. Strict Liability and Absolute Liability are defined as part of the Law of Torts. These two have similar significance.

There is a need for more recognition of the concept of Absolute Liability in India. There is an urgent and inherent need for a principle of Absolute Liability as the rule of Strict Liability which is followed in most countries, cannot be taken as the sole principle to provide for compensation. For the purpose of providing a better remedy under Civil Law and broadly developing our own Jurisprudence, to suit our own needs we require a principle which will be just to both the wrongdoer and sufferer. Absolute Liability is in accordance with the prevailing situation in our Country, we are distinguished for globalisation and large investments and when the nature of industries is most hazardous.

References

lawcirca.com Rule of Strict and Absolute Liability.Law Circa

www.legitimatescrutiny.com Critical Analysis of the Concept of Strict and Absolute Liability

[1] (1868) LR 3 HL 330

[2] (1947) AC 156

[3] (1926) 2 KB 332

[4] (1884) 13 QBD 131

Rebecca Furtado,https://blog.ipleaders.in concept of Strict Liability and Absolute Liability

Shraileen Kaur, https://www.ejusticeindia.com Doctrine of Strict and Absolute Liability-E-Justice India

[5] (1876) 2 EXD 1

[6] LR 4 EX Div 76

[7] [1894] 70 L.T. 547

[8] LR 6 Exchequer 217

[9] 1996 SCC (4) 750

Yuthika Agarwal,Latestlaws.com https://www.latestlaws.com

Ali Ahmed & Sangeet Saroha,https://www.xajzkjdx.in Absolute Liability in India: A Critical Analysis

[10] 1990 AIR 273 1989 SCC (2) 540 1989 SCALE (1) 932 ACT

[11] 1996 AIR 1446, 1996 SCC [3] 212

[12] (1914) 3 KB 772 A

W.V.H Rogers, Fundamental Principles of Law, The Law of Tort, Chapter VI Strict Liability, Page No.101, Published in 1989 by Sweet & Maxwell Ltd., London

Doctrine of Strict Liability and Absolute Liability

Published by Vijaya Kumari, LLM on December 19, 2022December 19, 2022

Table of Contents

Introduction

Strict Liability