Write about critical analysis of
strict liability along with the
exceptions to the rule- in the
light of various caselaws.
Introduction
All human activities pose a certain amount risk to others i.e. society. With the
advent of industrialisation, new technologies and innovations were taking a
hold of the world. These new activities pose a great risk to the society if
something goes askew. Nevertheless, these activities were imperative for
social development and economic prosperity. Depending on the needs or
overall good of a society, hazardous activities were either made to be unlawful
or were allowed. In the case they were allowed, the liability of such a hazard
falls on the person who so does such an activity. The question of ‘what is
extent the said liability’ is to extend is what ultimately led to the Doctrine of
Strict liability as established in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher.
Doctrine of Strict Liability is an exception to
General liability of Negligence
Tortious liability generally emanates from the negligence of the wrongdoer. So,
if a person is able to prove that he exercised due care and was not negligent,
he will not be liable. The burden of proof generally, with the exception of Res
Ipsa Loquitor, will fall on the plaintiff. In the case of hazardous Industries or
activities, if the injury caused is a direct consequence of such activity, then the
liability falls on such defendant to prove his innocence. This is the essence of
Strict Liability.
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)
Facts: In Rylands v Fletcher, the defendants employed independent
contractors to construct a reservoir on their land. The contractors found
disused mines when digging but failed to seal them properly. They filled the
reservoir with water. As a result, water flooded through the mineshafts into
the plaintiff’s mines on the adjoining property. The plaintiff secured a verdict at
Liverpool Assizes. The Court of Exchequer Chamber held the defendant liable
and the House of Lords affirmed their decision. In the judgement the House of
Lords laid the Doctrine of Strict Liability.
Key Essentials to Establish Strict Liability in
the Case
There must have been a non-natural use of land.
There must be ‘escape’ of a thing, which is inherently mischievous,
which is kept or brought there.
It must have caused mischief.
The general Applicability of the Rule in
Cases
Activities involving non-natural user of land
Activities involving dangerous operations such as blasting, mining etc.
Liability arising out of keeping dangerous animals
Liability of dangerous structures such as a building, rail etc
Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Countries
Leather plc (1994)
Facts: The defendants were operating a tannery, and in production process
perochlorothene (PCE). The PCE was delivered to the defendant’s tannery in
barrels which while handling caused small spillages regularly.
Issue: Whether the rules for remoteness of damage and foreseeability of the
type of damage caused apply to cases involving the rule in Rylands v Fletcher
Judgement: It was held that the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher is not to be applied
in cases where the damages are too remote and the damages need to
reasonably foreseeable.
The important take away from this case is that another rule in Strict Liability is
that the damage cause must be reasonably foreseeable.
A case which encapsulates the three essential requirements is the case of
Jaipur Golden Gas Victim’s Association v. Union if India. The petitioner had a
filed a writ under section 226 of the Constitution against the defendant. The
defendant had stored rodent pesticide, which was highly toxic, in a residential
area. The pesticide caught fire releasing poisonous gases causing injury to
many and death of 4 persons. The court held the defendant liable as such
activity is inherently hazardous and falls under RVF. The storage of rodent
pesticide in large quantities in a residential area is a non-natural use of the
land, which subsequently escaped and caused mischief (injury).
The mere escape of a thing which causes damage is not enough to establish
Strict Liability. In Bolton v. Stone, Ms. Stone was struck by a cricket ball coming
out of a cricket ground which has a 17 feet high fence. The House of Lords held
that the plaintiff cannot be held Strictly Liable as there was no non-natural use
of land.
Exceptions or Defences to Strict Liability
1. Damage Caused due to Natural User
Where the defendant successfully proves before the court that the use of his
premises or land in occupation was natural, his case will be exempted from the
application of Strict Liability. This defence was used in Bolton v. Stone, as
already previously discussed. The malintent of the defendant alone is not
enough to overturn this defence, in Giles v Walker, there was a spontaneous
growth of certain type of undesired vegetation in the defendant’s land, which
the defendant as stop as he wanted it to spread to the defendant’s land and
cause him damage and annoyance. The plaintiff sued for the accumulation of
this undesired vegetation, but the Court refused to intervene as it as not a
non-natural use of Land.
2. Consent to the Plaintiff or Volenti Non Fit Injuria
Where the plaintiff has expressly or impliedly consented to the presence of a
source of danger and there has been no negligence on the part of the
defendant, the defendant will not be liable. This is also expressed in the maxim
volenti non fit injuria. In Peters v. Prince of Wales Theatre Ltd. Birmingham, the
plaintiff took a shop in the defendant’s premises knowing that the premises
contained a large water container room to safeguard the theatre, also on the
premises, from fire. The water container burst due to excessive frost causing
damage to plaintiff’s goods. He sued the defendant for damages. The Court
held that defendant is not liable as the plaintiff has impliedly consented to
such eventuality.
3. Plaintiff’s Own Default
Where the damage is solely caused by the plaintiff’s own act, he shall have no
remedy against the defendant. In Ponting v. Noakes, the plaintiff’s horse
reached over the defendant’s boundary, ate poisonous leaves and died. The
claim was denied as the damage was due to plaintiff’s horse’s own intrusion.
4. Act of Stranger
Where the damage is caused due to wrongful act of a third party or stranger
over whom the defendant had no control. In Richard’s v. Lothian, some
strangers blocked the waste pipe of was basin which was otherwise in
defendant’s control. Held, the defendant not liable as it was the act of
stranger; however, when the act of the stranger can be foreseen by the
defendant, the defendant is responsible to exercise due care.
5. Act of God or Vis Major
The principle of strict liability does not apply for the damage caused by a
natural phenomenon, which is extraordinary or unprecedented and beyond
human contemplation. In Nicolas v. Marsland, the defendant made artificial
lakes on his land by damming a natural stream for several year. There was
extraordinary amount rainfall which was beyond human contemplation which
caused the lakes to overflow and damage the defendant’s property. The
defendant was not liable as it was not negligent and an act of God. In another
case, Greenock Corp. v. Caledonian Rly. Co, the defendant constructed a
paddling pool in the bed of the stream as result of which owing to torrential
rainfall, the stream overflowed into the plaintiff’s property causing damage to
it. The HOL rejected the defence of Vis Major as the rainfall although heavy,
was not unprecedented.
6. Common Benefit of Plaintiff and Defendant
Where the escape of the thing causes damage was for the benefit of both. The
plaintiff will not be held liable. For example, in Box v. Jubb, the defendant built
a reservoir, which was for the benefit of plaintiff and defendant, overflowed
causing damage. The court held the defendant not liable as the reservoir which
overflowed was built for common benefit.
7. Statutory Authority
Strict Liability does not apply where acts are done in exercise od statutory
authority. For instance, in Green v. Chelsea Waterworks, a pipe belonging to
the waterworks company burst damaging plaintiff’s premises. There was no
negligence on part of the company and Strict Liability could not be applied as it
was covered under statutory authority at that time.
