STRICT LIABILITY
In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard
of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the
consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence
of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant.
The strict liability principle is an extremely important concept under the
law of torts. The basis of this principle basically lies in the inherent
harm that some activities can inflict. For example, leaking of poisonous
gasses, as it happened in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, will attract this rule.
Under the strict liability rule, the law makes people pay compensation
for damages even if they are not at fault. In other words, people have to
pay compensation to victims even if they took all the necessary
precautions. In fact, permissions allowing such activities often include
this principle as a pre-condition.
Strict liability is a doctrine that holds a person liable for any injuries
or damages caused by their products or actions, even if they had no
intent to harm and were not at fault. An injured party does not have to
prove negligence or fault in order to receive damages under strict
liability. Even if a defendant uses safety precautions and posts
warnings, if the action falls under the theory of strict liability law,
they will be held liable. The idea behind strict liability is that the
defendant's actions are of such dangerous propensity that it is
reasonably foreseeable someone could be injured. It is meant to
encourage people who engage in these types of behaviors or actions to
use safety measures. The injured party does not have to prove fault on
the part of the defendant, but they do have to show that the hazardous
conditions caused their injuries. In tort law, the doctrine of strict
liability does not look to a defendant's intent, negligence, or lack of
reasonable care, it simply looks at the dangerous activities and
whether those actions caused the plaintiff's injuries. An example of a
strict liability claim may be when a consumer buys a product that
turns out to be defective or dangerous and is then injured by using it.
Another example may be injuries caused by someone's dangerous
animal.
TYPES OF STRICT LIABLITY
There are three general categories in strict liability:
Abnormally dangerous activities
Keeping dangerous animals
Product liability
Remember that strict liability was created to hold people responsible
for engaging in ultrahazardous activities to protect the public. Any
injuries that arise from these activities must be shown to be the result
of the dangerous activities, animals, or products. There is no intent or
carelessness that needs to be proven. The common factor in these is
that they are all considered "dangerous" activities, and the person who
engages in them should be fully responsible for any repercussions. A
person who happens upon such a thing and is injured should not have
to prove the other person's wrongdoing in order to recover damages.
If a person chooses to engage in an ultrahazardous activity or own a
dangerous animal or product, they should bear the full responsibility
for injuries that occur as a result. A difference in these could be that
an owner may have no idea the animal they own is dangerous. Of
course, if the person owned a tiger, they would be strictly liable for
any injuries caused by that tiger. What about a dog? If the dog is a
quiet little dog who has never in ten years growled at or bitten anyone
and one day bites someone, should the owner be strictly liable for the
injuries? The old common law tended to lean towards the "one free
bite" rule, which held that if an owner had no idea the animal was
dangerous, they were not necessarily liable. States today have statutes
to deal with this issue, and it does vary state by state. The majority of
states hold the owner liable for all injuries, whether they had
knowledge of any dangerous propensities or not.
Rylands vs. Fletcher
The defendant (Fletcher) an owner of a mill in Answorth with an aim
to improve water supply for his mill employed independent and
efficient engineers for the construction of a reservoir. During their
excavation of the ground underneath, they came across some shafts
and passages but chose not to block them. Post construction of the
reservoir when they filled it with water, all the water flowed through
the unblocked old shafts and passages to the plaintiff’s (Rylands) coal
mines on the adjoining land and inundated them completely. The
engineers kept the defendant in the dark about the occurrence of
these incidents. On a suit filed before the court by the plaintiff
against the defendant, the court though ruled out negligence on the
defendant’s part but held him liable under the rule of Strict Liability.
Any amount of carefulness on his part is not going to save him where
his liability falls under the scope of ‘No Fault Liability’
ESSENTIALS OF STRICT LIABILITY
1- Some dangerous thing must have been brought by a person on his
land.
2- The thing thus brought or kept by a person on his land must escape.
3-It must be non natural use of land.
EXCEPTIONS OF STRICT LIABLITY
1- Consent of the Plaintiff : - When the plaintiff has either expressly
or impliedly consented to the presence of a source of danger and also
there has been no negligence on the defendant’s part, the defendant
will not be held liable. It is basically the defence of ‘Volenti non fit
injuria’ taken by the defendant in the court.
2- Plaintiff’s Own Default: When damage is caused to the plaintiff
solely due to his own fault, he shall receive no remedy in such cases.
3- Act of Stranger: When damage is caused due to wrongful act
committed by a third party or any stranger over whom the defendant
had no control, the defendant will not be held liable under such
circumstances.
4- Act of God or Vis Major: For acts which are beyond human control
and contemplation, caused due to superior natural forces, the principle
of strict liability does not apply.
5- Common Benefit of Plaintiff and the Defendant: Where the act or
escape of the dangerous thing was for the common benefit of the
defendant and plaintiff, the defendant will not be held liable.
6- Statutory Authority: If any act done under the authorization of the
law/statute like the government of a country or a state government
causes any damage to a person, it acts as a defence to an action for
tort.
CASE LAWS: -
1- Teeka Ram vs Laghu Urja Pariyojna Adhikari
The respondents have failed to undertake periodical inspections as
visualized under the Act and Rules framed thereunder. They have
failed to protect the life and property of the general public. The
present case falls within the ambit of strict liability. There is a flagrant
violation of the Act and the Rules by the respondents by not providing
any safeguards, checks and balances to prevent escape of energy
which caused electrocution in the instant case. The hanging of wire in
the close proximity of house was a potential danger and threat to
public at large. The burden on the respondents was high involving the
risk factor. The respondents have failed to discharge the onus placed
upon them under the Statutes. There is also a criminal negligence on
the part of the functionaries of respondent nos.1 and 2.
Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person
undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to
human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury
suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or
carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The
basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very
nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in
law, as "strict liability". It differs from the liability which arises on
account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of
negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided
by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which
could be done for avoiding the harm, he cannot be held liable when
the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such
consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the
defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided
the particular harm by taking precautions.
2- Manohar Lal Sobha Ram Gupta vs. Madhya
Pradesh Electricity Board
In the case of "Manohar Lal Sobha Ram Gupta and others vs.
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board", reported in 1975 ACJ
494, the Division Bench has held that the Electricity Board is
a statutory Authority and as such the standard of care required
is high one owing to the dangerous nature of electricity. It has
been held as under:
"[4] The defendant has a statutory authority under
the Electricity Act, 1910, read with the Electricity
Supply Act, 1948 to transmit electric energy. The
defendant, therefore, cannot be made liable for nuisance
for the escape of electrical energy on the principle
accepted in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, (1866) LR 1
Ex 265. The defendant, however, is still liable for
negligence. It is negligence to omit to use all reasonable
known means to keep the electricity harmless; (see Clerk
& Lindsell on Torts, 13th Edition, paragraph 1536), The
burden of proving that there was no negligence is on the
defendant and there is no obligiation on he plaintiff to
prove negligence. Further, the standard of care required
is a high one owing to the dangerous nature
of electricity; (see Charlesworth on Negligence, 5th
Edition, p. 531). If the defendant produces no material
and offers no evidence to negative negligence,
negligence will be presumed. This result will also follow
on the principle of res ipsa loquitur. Live
broken electric wires carrying, high tension energy are
generally not found in a public place, street or road and,
therefore, if such a thing happens a prima facie inference
can be drawn that there has been some carelessness on
the part of the defendant in transmitting electric energy
or in properly maintaining the transmission lines. This
inference is further supported by Rule 91 of the
Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. This rule provides that
every over head line which is not covered with insulating
material and which is erected over any part of a street or
other public place or any factory or mine or on any
consumer's premises shall be protected with a device
approved by the Inspector for rendering the
line electrically harmless in ease it breaks. If the
precaution under this rule is taken the line in case it
breaks would become dead and harmless. The fact that
the line after it broke did not become harmless shows
that necessary precaution was not taken. As the
defendant has not produced any evidence whatsoever to
place the facts showing that all necessary precautions
were taken and there was no negligence on its part, it
must be held that the accident happened because of the
negligence of the defendant."
