Legal Reasoning

Passage: 1 In 1932, the celebrated case of Donoghue v. Stevenson laid down the “neighbour principle” in tort
law, expanding liability in negligence beyond contractual relationships. The facts were unusual: Mrs.
Donoghue consumed ginger beer from an opaque bottle that contained a decomposed snail. She suffered
illness and claimed damages from the manufacturer, despite having no contractual relationship with him,
since thee bottle was bought by her friend. Lord Atkin, delivering the landmark judgment, stated that one
must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that can foreseeably injure their “neighbour,” meaning
persons closely and directly affected by one’s conduct.
cond

This principle shaped the doctrine of negligence across jurisdictions, including India. For negligence to
succeed, three essential elements must be proved:

1. Duty of Care – a legal obligation owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.

2. Breach of Duty – failure to meet the standard of a reasonable person.
3. Causation and Damage – the breach must directly cause harm to the plaintiff.

Indian courts have applied this doctrine in various contexts. For example, in Municipal Corporation of Delhi
v. Subhagwanti
wanti (1966), where a clock tower collapsed and killed pedestrians, the Supreme Court held the
Corporation liable for negligence in maintaining public structures. Similarly, in medical negligence cases,
courts have emphasized that a professional standard ofof care is expected from doctors.

However, the doctrine is not limitless. Defences such as volenti non fit injuria (to a willing person, no injury
is done), contributory negligence, and statutory exceptions restrict liability. For instance, if a person
knowingly
wingly undertakes a risky activity, the defendant may not be held liable for resulting harm.

The balance between protecting individuals from careless conduct and avoiding excessive liability on
defendants remains a recurring theme in tort law. Courts constantly
constantly weigh public policy, foreseeability, and
fairness in determining the scope of negligence.

1. In Donoghue v. Stevenson, the principle established extended liability to:

(a) Only parties in contractual relationships.
(b) Persons foreseeably affected by one’s act or omission.
(c) Only manufacturers dealing in food and beverages.
(d) Any member of the general public regardless of foreseeability.

2. In the Subhagwanti case (clock tower collapse), the Supreme Court held the Corporation liable primarily
because:
(a) It had a contractual duty to the deceased.
(b) It failed to maintain a structure under its control, causing foreseeable harm.
(c) Strict liability automatically applied without proof of negligence.
(d) The deceased had no role in maintaining safety.
s
3. Which of the following is a valid defence to a negligence claim?
(a) Foreseeability of harm.
(b) Volenti non fit injuria.
(c) Standard of reasonable care.
(d) Breach of duty.

4. If a patient consents to a risky medical procedure after being informed of all dangers, and harm occurs, the
doctor can rely on:
(a) Contributory negligence.
(b) Volenti non fit injuria.
(c) Res ipsa loquitur.
(d) Absolute liability.

5. The doctrine of negligence requires proof of:

(a) Duty, breach, causation, and damage.
(b) Duty, foreseeability, contributory negligence, and malice.
(c) Strict liability, absolute liability, and public policy.
(d) Breach of contract and damages.

Passage: 2 One of the most debated areas in the law of torts is strict liability, laid down in the famous case of
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868). In that case, the defendant constructed a reservoir on his land. Unknown to him,
beneath the reservoir lay disused mine shafts which were not properly sealed. When water escaped through
these shafts and flooded the plaintiff’s active mine, the court held the defendant liable, even though there
was no negligence on his part. The principle established was that a person who, for his own purposes, brings
and keeps on his land anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril. If he fails, he is
strictly liable for the damage caused by the escape.

Strict liability thus shifts focus from negligence to the inherently dangerous nature of the activity. It applies
to hazardous substances, dangerous animals, and escape of fire, water, or chemicals. However, several
exceptions limit its application: (i) plaintiff’s own fault, (ii) act of God, (iii) act of a stranger, (iv) statutory
authority, and (v) consent of the plaintiff.

Indian law later developed the principle of absolute liability in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), arising
from the Oleum gas leak in Delhi. The Supreme Court ruled that enterprises engaged in hazardous activities
bear an absolute and non-delegable duty to ensure safety, and cannot escape liability by pleading exceptions
available under strict liability. This doctrine is justified on grounds of social justice and the magnitude of risk
posed by industries in a modern economy.

The distinction between strict and absolute liability reflects the evolution of tort law in balancing industrial
growth with protection of individual rights. While strict liability recognizes exceptions to prevent unfairness
to defendants, absolute liability represents a higher standard of accountability, particularly in cases involving
hazardous enterprises where the potential for widespread harm is immense.

1. The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher makes a person liable when:

(a) Damage results from negligence in maintaining property.
(b) A dangerous thing escapes from his land, even without negligence.
(c) Injury is caused by an unforeseeable natural disaster.
(d) The plaintiff voluntarily takes the risk of harm.
2. Which of the following is not an exception to strict liability?
(a) Plaintiff’s own fault.
(b) Act of God.
(c) Statutory authority.
(d) Absolute liability.

3. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court evolved the principle of absolute liability because:
(a) Strict liability already covered hazardous industries.
(b) The defendant could rely on exceptions like act of God.
(c) Hazardous enterprises must bear full responsibility without exceptions.
(d) The legislature had passed a law abolishing strict liability.

4. Suppose a factory stores poisonous gas. Despite all precautions, an earthquake causes leakage and injuries
to nearby residents. Under strict liability, the factory:
(a) Is not liable due to the defence of act of God.
(b) Is liable because negligence is presumed.
(c) Is liable under absolute liability without exceptions.
(d) Can sue the government for damages.

5. The difference between strict and absolute liability is that:

(a) Strict liability is broader and has no exceptions, while absolute liability has exceptions.
(b) Strict liability applies only to contracts, while absolute liability applies to torts.
(c) Absolute liability imposes liability without exceptions, while strict liability recognizes certain defences.
(d) Both are identical principles with no difference in practice.