Strict Liability and Absolute Liability
Every person has certain legal rights, and it is the duty of other
persons to respect them. Fault-based liability means the
defendant violates the plaintiff’s rights. In No-Fault liability, the
defendant is held liable to pay compensation even though he was
not at fault. No fault liability is categorised into two parts:
1. Strict liability and
2. Absolute Liability. In this article, we will discuss strict and
absolute liability in detail.
Strict liability
The concept of strict liability evolved from the case of
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868). What actually a strict liability
means is that anyone who retains dangerous chemicals on
their property is accountable for any errors made if those
substances somehow escape and cause harm. If there was
no negligence on the part of the person retaining it, this rule
is valid, and the burden of proof is always on the defendant
to show why he is not guilty.
Rylands v. Fletcher
Two men were living adjacent to each other, i.e., Rylands
and Fletcher. Fletcher had a mill which required energy
resources for which there was a need to construct a
reservoir. He hired some independent contractors and
engineers for the construction. Ryland owned certain mine
shafts which the contractors didn’t observe. Because of this,
the water reached mines and destroyed Ryland’s land, for
which he suffered losses and sued for same.
Issue: Can the defendant be held responsible for another
party's action that causes an entity to leave his property
without his knowledge or consent?
The defendant asserted that it was the contractor’s fault
rather than his own. He could not accept that he was
responsible for the harm, even though he did not know what
caused it.
Judgment: The House of Lords held that Fletcher would be
liable to compensate Rylands for all the damage caused to
him.
Following the precedent set by this case, even if a person
did not act negligently when retaining a dangerous object on
his property, he will be held prima facie liable for any harm
caused by that object's escape. A person is liable not
because of their fault or negligence but because they kept a
dangerous object on their property, which then escaped and
caused damage. The strict liability rule refers to the situation
where liability arises even in the absence of fault on the
defendant’s part.
Based on this principle, certain essentials have been created
that help to decide whether liability is strict.
1. Someone must have brought something hazardous into
their property.
2. There must be Non-natural use of land.
3. The hazardous item that was brought must escape and
cause damage.
Exceptions of strict liability
1. Plaintiff’s own fault- Ponting vs Noakes would be a
perfect example. In this instance, the plaintiff's horse
entered the defendant's property, ate some wild tree leaves,
and passed away. The damage would not have been caused
if the plaintiff's horse had not trespassed on the defendant's
property. Hence, the defendant was not held accountable.
As there was no way out, the strict responsibility rule would
not be applicable. In the judicial pronouncement of Ponting v
Noakes,[3] 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.
2. Act of God- Whatever natural occurrence that is
unpredictable, uncontrollable, or unavoidable is not to be
held responsible for any damage it does. In Nicholas v.
Marsland, 1876, the plaintiff's four bridges were destroyed
when the defendant's artificial lake flooded due to heavy
rains. To obtain the damages, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit. It
was decided that the defendant was not responsible since an
act of God caused the accident.
3. Volenti non-fit injuria/ mutual benefit- If two people
introduce something artificial for their mutual advantage
and it causes damage, neither of them may sue the other for
compensation. As in the case of, Dunne v. North West Gas
Board the plaintiffs brought an action against the Gas Board
after the gas had escaped from a rupture in the water main
leading to five casualties. The defendant was not held liable
as it was a consented act and the Gas Board had not
accumulated the substance for its own benefit.
4. Act of stranger/third party- The defendant will not be
held accountable by this rule if any harm was brought by a
third party over whom the defendant had no influence. in
the case of Box v Jubb,[5] 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.
5. Statutory authority- A defence to a tort claim is an act
performed under the authority of a statute. In the
ruling Greene v. Chelsa Waterworks and Co, the court held
that no company was not liable in the event of the burst in
the main pipe as it was the duty of the defendant to
maintain the main supply of water.
Absolute liability
In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the doctrine of
absolute liability was developed. This case was a significant
turning point in Indian legal history by establishing a new
rule. The rule stated that an enterprise is strictly liable to
compensate all those harmed by an accident when the
enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity and harm results to anyone as a result of
an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity.
M.C. Mehta v. UOI- A company owned by Union Carbide was
established in Bhopal. The factory produced pesticides and
similar goods. 40 tonnes of hazardous gas were released by
the plant overnight on December 2nd, 1984. (methyl
isocyanate). The surrounding region of the facility turned
into a gas chamber, resulting in 3000 fatalities and
numerous injuries. All of the plant's safety systems were
determined to be broken throughout the examination. The
Supreme Court decided against adhering to the strict liability
rule because doing so would let these industries off the hook
for the harm they inflicted and the lives they lost.
The rule stated clearly that when an enterprise engages in a
risky or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused to
anyone as a result of an accident while carrying out such a
risky or inherently dangerous activity, the enterprise is
strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all parties
affected by accident and such liability is not subject to any
of the exceptions that apply to the tortious principle of strict
liability.
ABSOLUTE LIABILITY= STRICT LIABILITY - EXCEPTIONS
Essentials of absolute liability
1. Hazardous Substance - The accountability for a
substance escaping from someone's land will only become
apparent if the substance is hazardous or dangerous under
the existing criteria. The substance must be hazardous
because it is damaging, hurtful, and potentially destructive.
2. Escape - It must be proven that something that caused
hurt or damage escaped the defendant's property or
property under their control to hold them accountable. In
other words, the dangerous material must escape to
endanger a victim and establish absolute culpability.
However, escape inside the building might also be
considered complete culpability. the defendant has some
poisonous plant on his property. Leaves from the plant enter
the property of the plaintiff and is eaten by his cattle, who as
a result die. The defendant will be liable for the loss. But on
the other hand, if the cattle belonging to the plaintiff enter
the premises of the defendant and eats the poisonous leaves
and die, the defendant would not be liable. In the judicial
pronouncement of Reads v. Lyons & Co.[2] it was held that if
there is no escape, the defendant cannot be held liable. 1.
Case- Crowhurst [Link] Burial Board, (1878) 4 Ex. D.
5; Cheater vs. Cater, (1908) 1 K.B. 247:-
If the branches of a poisonous tree that is planted on the
defendant’s land spreads out to the neighbouring plaintiff’s
land, this amounts to the escape of that dangerous,
poisonous thing from the boundaries or control of the
defendant and onto the plaintiff’s land. Now, the issue
arises, if the cattle of the plaintiff nibbles on these leaves,
then the defendant will be held liable under the mentioned
rule even when nothing was done intentionally on his part.
2. Case- Read vs. Lyons and Co., (1947) A.C. 156:-
The plaintiff worked as an employee in the defendant’s shell
manufacturing company, while she was on duty within the
premises of the company, a shell being manufactured there
exploded due to which the plaintiff suffered injuries. A case
was filed against the defendant company but the court let
off the defendant giving the verdict that strict liability is not
applicable here as the explosion took place within the
defendant’s premises, the concept of escape of a dangerous
thing like the shell from the boundaries of the defendant is
missing here. Also negligence on the part of the defendant
could not be proved.
3. Non-natural use of land - The facts of the case make it
obvious. Water storage for residential use can be natural,
while large-scale water storage in reservoirs can be
unnatural. Growing trees or plants on land might be natural;
cultivating toxic plants can be unnatural.
4. Mischief - To hold the offender accountable, the plaintiff
must demonstrate that any hazardous chemical has escaped
and resulted in damages. In Charing Cross Electric Supply
Co. vs. Hydraulic Power Co. (1914) 3 KB 772, the
defendants’ 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
pipe line at four different places resulting in heavy damage
to the plaintiff which was proved with evidence. The
defendants’ were held liable in spite of no fault of theirs.
Conclusion
Absolute and strict liability are two related but distinct
concepts within the same body of law, the Law of Torts.
Strict Liability is narrower than an absolute liability. Both
systems of law are founded on no-fault liability. Still, strict
liability has several exceptions, and if a case falls under one
of those exceptions, the defendant is not held accountable
for the act. Absolute liability is a situation in which the
defendant must pay damages and is not permitted to raise
defences. Because of India’s industrialised economy and
style, this liability is more well-known there. Even though it
is in England, it needs to be adequately described there.
Cases
1. Cambridge Water Co. vs. Eastern Counties Leather, (1994)
1 ALL ER 53: The defendants had a tannery in operation at
Shawston near Cambridge. They used perchloroethane (PCE)
for degreasing the pelts essential for the tanning process.
Till 1976, the PCE was delivered to the defendant’s tannery
in drums which lead to regular spillage of the PCE in limited
amount. Over the next few years, this spillage amounted to
one thousand gallons. The PCE was soaked by the concrete
floor and got dissolved in the underground water. This
contaminated water used to flow to the plaintiff’s bore hole
at his mill about 1.3 miles away from the defendant’s
tannery. Due to this, the plaintiff sued the defendant and
wanted charges of strict liability to apply on him. But the
court’s verdict was in the favour of the defendant. The court
upheld that for strict liability to apply, the defendant must
be aware that the thing kept on his land will cause damage
or ‘mischief’ to the plaintiff’s land on its escape, this is an
essential element. However, in this case, it could never be
comprehended or foreseen by any reasonable supervisor at
the tannery that spillage of PCE at the tannery would
damage the water at a distance of 1.3 miles away and would
lead to an environmental hazard. It could not be imagined
that the PCE would dissolve in the underground water by
getting soaked through the ‘concrete floor’. The defendant
was not aware that such a kind of damage could be caused
by the PCE that he brought to use in his tannery. Therefore,
the rule of Strict Liability is not applicable here.
2. Jai Laxmi Salt Works vs. State of Gujarat, (1994) 4 SCC 1:
In this case the defendants to manufacture salt from sea-
water constructed a dam on a large portion of the land. Due
to negligent construction of the dam, water overflowed from
it and spread all around and damaged the plaintiff’s factory
due to water entering into it. A suit was filed in the court but
the court held that the rule of strict liability will not apply
here even though it is a non-natural use of the land as the
damage arose not due to construction of the dam but due to
improper construction of the same. It held the defendant
guilty of breaching its public duty by exposing the residents
of that area to risk.
According to Winfield in Winfield and Jolowicz, Tort, (Sweet &
Maxwell: 13th Edition, 1989) at p.443), the presence of
several defences allows the defendant to get saved from
bearing the onus of any liability as if he can prove that any
of the said defences apply to his case, the case will not
stand and he shall not be held liable. To quote him, “we
have virtually reached the position where a defendant will
not be considered liable when he would not be liable
according to the ordinary principles of negligence".
Further exceptions/defences to the Doctrine of Strict
Liability:-
§ Damage caused due to natural use of land:- Where the
defendant is able to prove before the court that he made
natural use of his land, he will be exempted from the rule of
strict liability applying on him.
Case: Giles vs. Walker, (1890) 24 QBD 656- In the
defendant’s land, there was spontaneous growth of thistle
plants. The defendant did not check the growth of this
undesired vegetation which was extending to the plaintiff’s
land also only to cause him annoyance and damage.
However, the defendant was able to prove that growing of
plants is a natural use of land and therefore he won the case
against the plaintiff.
§ 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.
Case: Peters vs. Prince of Wales Theatre Ltd. Birmingham,
(1942) 2 ALL ER 533- The plaintiff took on rent a shop in the
defendant’s premises after full knowledge of the fact that
the defendant had a theatre and rehearsal room attached to
the same premises. The theatre had a water storage
mechanism to douse fire in case of an emergency.
Unfortunately, the water container burst due to excessive
frost and the water leaked into the plaintiff’s shop thereby
damaging his goods. He sued the defendant for payment of
damages suffered by him. The court held the defendant not
liable as the plaintiff had impliedly consented to the
presence of the dangers of a water storage tank situated
right next to his shop by taking the defendant’s premises on
rent.
§ 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.
Case: Ponting vs. Noakes, (1894) 2 QB 281- In this case, the
plaintiff’s horse had nibbled on some poisonous leaves by
reaching over the boundary of the defendant’s land and had
eventually died. The court held that the vegetation on the
defendant’s land had not spread over to the plaintiff’s side
but it was the intrusion of the plaintiff’s horse in the
defendant’s land when it chewed on the leaves of the plant
sowed in the defendant’s plot. It was a case of the plaintiff
himself being at fault, therefore he could not demand any
remedy for the loss caused to him.
§ 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.
Case: Rickards vs. Lothian, (1913) AC 263- Some strangers
blocked the waste pipe of a wash basin, which was
otherwise in the control of the defendant and left the tap
open. The water overflowed because of this mischief caused
by the strangers and damaged the plaintiff’s goods. The
defendant was not held liable as this was an act of the
stranger which could not be foreseen by the defendant.
However, when the act of the stranger can be foreseen by
the defendant and damage can be prevented from
happening, proper care and duty must be exercised by the
defendant to prevent the act from occurring.
§ 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.
Case: Nichols vs. Marsland, (1876) 2 Ex D 1- The defendant
had some artificial lakes that he had formed by damming up
a natural stream for several years. However, an extra-
ordinary rainfall that year greater and more violent that any
rainfall ever witnessed there broke the artificial
embankments by the stream and the rushing water carried
away with it four bridges of the plaintiff. When sued for
damages, the court held the defendant not liable as she was
not negligent and this being an act of God was beyond her
control.
§ 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.
Case: Box vs. Jubb, (1879) 4 Ex D 76- The defendant’s
reservoir overflowed partly due to his act and partly due to
the acts of the neighbouring reservoir owners damaging the
property of the plaintiff who was also a resident of the same
multi-storied building as the defendant. The defendant was
not held liable as the water reservoirs were installed keeping
the common benefit of all the residents of the multi-storied
building in mind including the plaintiff and the defendant.
§ 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: Green vs. Chelsea Waterworks Co., (1894) 70 L.T. 547-
The defendant company was under a statutory order to
maintain continuous water supply. A main belonging to the
company burst without any negligence of the defendants
and flooded the plaintiff’s premises with water. It was held
that the company would not be liable as it was engaged in
performance of a statutory duty.
A few cases where Absolute Liability was upheld:-
M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1086:-
The S.C. of India was dealing with claims of leakage of oleum
gas on the 4th and 6th December,1985 from one of the units
of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries, Delhi. Due to this
leakage, one advocate and several others had died. An
action was brought against the industry through a writ
petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution by way of
a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The judges in this case
refused to follow the Strict Liability Principle set by the
English Laws and came up with the Doctrine of Absolute
Liability. The court then directed the organizations who had
filed the petitions to file suits against the industry in
appropriate courts within a span of 2 months to demand
compensation on behalf of the aggrieved victims.
Bhopal Gas Tragedy / Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of
India, (1991) 4 SCC 548:-
This doctrine was upheld in the infamous Bhopal Gas
Tragedy which took place between the intervening night of
2nd and 3rd December, 1984. Leakage of methyl-iso-
cyanide(MIC) poisonous gas from the Union Carbide
Company in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh led to a major disaster
and over three thousand people lost their lives. There was
heavy loss to property, flora and fauna. The effects were so
grave that children in those areas are born with deformities
even today. 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 case
was dismissed there owing to no jurisdiction. The
Government of India enacted the Bhopal Gas Disaster
(Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 and sued the company for
damages on behalf of the victims. The Court applying the
principle of ‘Absolute Liability’ held the company liable and
ordered it to pay compensation to the victims.
Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action vs. Union of India, AIR
1996 SC 1446
A PIL filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution voiced
protests of the petitioners over the presence of industries
that was causing large scale environmental pollution and
endangering the lives of the villagers who resided in the
vicinity of the industries. It violated their right to life and
liberty given under Article 21of the Indian Constitution as
they were unable to live in a healthy environment. The
Supreme Court initiated instant action and ordered the
Central Government and the Pollution Control Board to
constitute strict measures against the said industries. The
court upheld the Doctrine of Absolute Liability here stating
that the polluted environment must be restored to a
pollution free one conducive for healthy living by utilizing
anti-pollution scientific appliances. The expenditure so
incurred in this process must be paid by the industries even
if their properties need to be attached for this purpose. The
industries were made absolutely liable for paying monetary
damages for restoration of the environment.
Absolute Liability can also be upheld by the courts in case of
a single death without any mass destruction of property or
pollution of the environment.
Klaus Mittelbachert vs. East India Hotels Ltd., A.I.R 1997
Delhi 201 (single judge):
In this case, the plaintiff, a German co-pilot suffered grave
injuries after diving into the swimming pool of the five-star
restaurant. Upon investigation, it was seen that the pool was
defectively designed and had insufficient amount of water as
well. The pilot’s injuries left him paralyzed leading to death
after 13 years of the accident. The court held that five-star
hotels that charge hefty amounts owe a high degree of care
to its guests. This was violated by Hotel Oberoi Inter-
continental, New Delhi when the defectively designed
swimming pool left a man dead. This made the hotel
absolutely liable for payment of damages. The hefty
amounts taken from the guests by the hotel owners
guaranteed them to pay exemplary damages to the
deceased or in any such further cases. It was decided that
the plaintiff would receive Rs. 50 lakhs for the accident
caused.
Difference between Strict liability and Absolute Liability
Basis of
Absolute Liability Strict Liability
Difference
Level of
Mass Damage Limited damage
Damage
Many Defences (Volenti fit
Defence No Defence injuria. Act of god, plaintiff’s own
default)
Act of the third party, an act of
Exceptions No exception
god etc..
It depends on the Compensation is paid according
Degree of
capability of the to the nature and quantum of
Damage
company. damage
Element of
Not necessary Necessary
Escape
