STRICT LIABILITY

Introduction
Strict liability is a legal doctrine where a person/party is held liable for damages/ injuries
regardless of fault or intent or simply “liability would exist irrespective of any fault”

It is based on the principle of foreseeability. Certain activities which are inherently so dangerous
in nature that merely carrying them on poses a duty on the person who does so, to compensate
for any damage irrespective of any carelessness on their part,even if the defendant was not
negligent, or rather, even if the defendant did not want to damage or was cautious, he might
still be held accountable under the rule.

Essentials for strict liability in torts

Following is necessary to prove strict liability

A. Dangerous Thing –
A person can be held “strictly liable” only in the cases where he possesses a dangerous
substance and that escapes from their land.
A dangerous substance is those which are likely to cause some harm or mischief if
escape. Eg, vibrations, electricity, gas, sewage, explosives, rusty wires, etc. may be
considered to be dangerous things.

B. Escape
It is also essential that such dangerous thing must escape from the premises of the
defendant
In the case of Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board where the branches of the
poisonous tree were spread from defendant’s land to plaintiffs, it was held that such was
escaped. Whereas in the case of Read v. Lyons & Co, where an employee suffered an injury due
to an explosion in a shell manufacturing company, it was held such could not be covered under
strict liability principle as nothing escaped from the defendant’s premises.

C. Damage
There must be damage suffered by the plaintiff as a direct consequence of the
dangerous thing that escaped.

D. Non-Natural use of land

non-natural use of land as “some special use bringing with it increased danger to others
and not merely the ordinary use of the land or such a use as it proper for the general benefit for
the community”.In disputed cases it would be decided by the courts after considering all the
surrounding circumstances and the prevalent social conditions.
This principle was first applied by the House of Lord in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher.in the
year 1868

The facts of the case, here defendant who was a mill owner had appointed certain contractors
(apparently with requisite skills) to construct reservoirs in his land to provide water in the mill.
During the work, the contractors came across certain old shafts in defendant’s land. Such shafts
were connected with the plaintiff’s mine but such was not ascertainable as the shafts appeared
to be filled with the earth. As soon as the reservoirs where filled, the shafts broke down and
thereby flooded the mines of the plaintiff.
The court held that building such a reservoir was at the risk of defendants and in course
of it, if any mishap occurred, defendants would be liable for such escape of materials.

Judgement
The person who for his own purpose brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything
likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril and if he does not do so is prima
facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequences for its escape. He cannot
escape himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff’s fault, consequences or
his major acts or act of God.

Exceptions to the Rule of Strict Liability in Torts

In strict liability there are certain exceptions that the defendant can plead to escape from the
liability.

A. The default of the claimant

The cases where damage is suffered by the plaintiff due to his own fault, the principle of
strict liability would not be applied.

Case
Ponting v. Noakes where the plaintiff’s horse intruded into the defendant’s territory
died after nibbling on leaves of the poisonous tree in the defendant’s land. It was held
that such was due to the plaintiff’s own fault as such a tree had not reached the
plaintiff’s land.

B. Act of God
Strict liability would not be applicable to the cases where damage is caused due to act of
God or which are beyond human power or contemplation and are caused by a superior
natural force.
case
Nichols v. Marsland is a wonderful example of a case where the defence was effectively
pleaded. In this instance, the defendant dammed up a natural stream to construct
artificial lakes on his property.
 The stream and the lakes swelled to the point that the embankments built for the
artificial lakes, which were sturdy enough for an average downpour, gave way, and the
surge of water down the stream washed out the plaintiff’s four bridges. The plaintiff filed
a lawsuit in order to recoup damages. The defendants were determined to be
completely blameless. Because the accident, in this case, was caused by an act of God,
the defendants were found not responsible under the rule in strict liability.

C. Consent of the claimant/ Common Benefit

This is basically a defense of ‘Volenti non fit injuria’ where the plaintiff has either
explicitly or impliedly consented for the presence of such dangerous thing. When two people
live on separate levels of the same building, for example, each of them is presumed to have
agreed to the construction of common-benefit items like the water system, gas pipes, or electric
wires

Where the source of danger is maintained for the common benefit of both plaintiff and
defendant, strict liability in torts would not be applicable

Case.
1. Box v. Jubb where the defendant’s reservoir got overflowed partly due to the
plaintiff’s reservoir and partly because of the defendant’s act. It was held defendant
can’t be made liable because such reservoirs were installed for the common benefit
of both the party.
2. In the case of Carstair v Taylor where the plaintiff rented the bottom floor of a
building from the defendant. The defendant himself lived on the top floor of the
building. Water stored on the top floor leaked without the defendant’s knowledge or
consent, causing damage to the plaintiff’s items on the bottom floor. The defendant
was found not responsible since the water had been stored for the advantage of
both the plaintiff and the defendant.

D. Statutory Authority
If a particular act is done under authorization of a law or statute, for example, an act
done by the government agencies, such an act cannot be made strictly liable.
Case
Green v. Chelsea waterworks co., where the defendant’s company was engaged to
maintain a continuous water supply under statutory authority, it was held that bursting
of such water supplies was without any defendant’s fault and statutory protection would
be granted in such a scenario
 E. Act of the third party
A defendant can claim a defense where damage is caused due to the fault of a stranger
or a third party where in such an act is not in control of the defendant.
Case
In the case of Rickards v. Lothian where some strangers blocked the water pipeline, Such
blockage resulted in an explosion which eventually causes damage to the plaintiff. It was
held that the defendant can’t be made liable due to the act of a third party which was
not in control of the defendant.

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
Introduction
The principle of absolute liability was evolved in India in the case of M.C Mehta v. Union of
India popularly known as Oleum gas leak case. This is one of the landmark judgements of the
Indian Judiciary. Indai had always followed the British rules and regulations even after
Independence. i.e., Before the evolution of this doctrine, India had been following the strict
liability doctrine. But the problem with that doctrine was it had so many exceptions that the
guilty one, always used one of the exceptions and was done away with the crime committed.

After the Bhopal leakage case, there was havoc in the city of Bhopal ,as many people lost their
lives and many were affected with the fatal diseases that lasted through the generations. So,
the Court decided to depart from the strict liability principle and develop a new principle that is
an absolute liability (strict liability – exceptions). This rule was laid down by the Supreme Court
which is so much wider with respect to the rules that was laid down by the House of Lords in
the case of Ryland v. Fetcher When a defendant is guilty, he is not allowed to plead any defense,
in a way it is a strict liability with no exception.

Concept of Absolute Liability

Definition: If an industry or enterprise is engaged in some inherently dangerous activity from
which it is deriving commercial gain and that activity is capable of causing catastrophic damage
then the industry officials are liable to pay compensation to the aggrieved parties in case of
damage occurred.

Essential Elements of Absolute Liability-

1. Dangerous Thing- The liability will only arise if there is any dangerous thing that has been
escaped from the owner’s land. And the thing is likely to cause damage and can injure any
person or person’s property on its escape. In various cases of strict liability, the following things
have been held dangerous that is- a large pool of water, electricity, gas, explosives, fumes, rusty
wires etc.

2. Escape – Any dangerous thing which is escaped from the defendant’s control and caused
damaged to the plaintiff’s property or injured any person will come under the ambit of absolute
liability.

In the case of Read vs Lyons and Co, the plaintiff was an employee in the defendant’s
manufacturing company. While doing her duty a piece of manufacture exploded and she
suffered severe harm. Here the court held- that the plaintiff was doing her duty and the
accident occurred within the premises and course of employment. It was held 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– If water is collected only for domestic use then it is not called as
non-natural use but if it is collected in large quantity like in a reservoir then it is termed as non-
natural use of land.

In the case of Ryland v. Fletcher, it was held that collecting water in the large quantity amounts
to non-natural use of land. The basic line which is drawn between a natural or non-natural use
of land is to keep in mind the surrounding and social conditions and will a reasonable person
would do? When a person is growing tree in her land that is the natural use of land but when
he/she starts growing poisonous tree then it is termed as non-natural use of land.

4. Mischief- To make the person liable under this principle, the plaintiff at first needs to show
that the defendant had done the non-natural use of land and escape of the dangerous thing
which he had on his land which resulted in the injury further.

In the case of Charing Cross Electric Supply Co. vs Hydraulic Power Co, the defendant was
assigned to supply water at different places. The defendant was also required to hold minimum
pressure but the defendant failed to do so which results in the bursting of the pipeline at
different places. It caused heavy damages to the plaintiff. The defendant was held liable in this
case.

Scope of Rule of Absolute Liability

In almost all the cases the rule of absolute liability is considered as an exception of the law.

Some other laws

Northwestern Utilities v London Guarantee and Accident Co [1936] A.C. 108

The appellants were a public utility corporation that transported high-pressure natural gas. A
gas pipe ruptured during the municipal authorities’ sewer work, causing a fire that damaged the
hotel insured by the respondents. The failure to do so was considered carelessness on the part
of the appellants, and they were held accountable because the municipal authorities’ actions
were visible and the threat to the gas pipelines could have been reasonably foreseeable and
guarded against.

M.P. Electricity Board v Shail Kumar AIR 2002 SC 551.

In this instance, a 37-year-old man named Joginder Singh was riding his bicycle home from work
on the night of August 23, 1997. A live electric line had snapped and was lying on the road. The
rain had fallen, and the road had become half-flooded. The biker was unaware of the electric
line, and when he came into touch with it, he perished instantly from electrocution.

The widow and small son of Joginder Singh filed a lawsuit against the M.P. Electricity Board. The
Strict Liability rule was used, and it was determined that the Board had a legal obligation to
provide energy in the region. The electric supplier will be held accountable if the energy so
conveyed causes damage or death to a person who is unwittingly trapped in it. The current
should have been shut off automatically if the electric cable was severed. Authorities in charge
of such hazardous materials have a special responsibility to devise plans to avoid catastrophes.

The defence that the breakage of the wire was caused by a stranger attempting to steal the
electricity was dismissed. The Electricity Board should have expected such an act, and at the
very least, the appellant Board should have averted the repercussions of the stranger’s
behaviour.

Madras Railway Co. v Zamindar [1974] 1 LA 364 (PC)

The owner of the property where such water is gathered is only accountable if he has not
exercised sufficient caution. The breaking of two old tanks on the respondent’s zamindari
resulted in the release of water in this case. These tanks, which had been there for a long time,
were built not just for the defendant’s advantage, but for the benefit of thousands of his ryots
as well. The fleeing water caused damage to the appellants’ homes, as well as the destruction of
three railway bridges.

The ruling in Rylands v. Fletcher was not relevant in these circumstances, and because the
zamindar was not careless, he was not accountable for the harm caused by the spilling water.
The Privy Council absolved the defendant of its liability placing reliance on the peculiar Indian
conditions which made it mandatory to store water.