STRICT LIABILITY UNDER TORT LAW
Introduction
Strict liability is a legal doctrine under which a person can be held liable for damages or harm
caused by their actions or property, regardless of intent or negligence. The principle was
established in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) and applies primarily in cases involving dangerous
activities or substances that escape and cause damage.
Essential Elements of Strict Liability
To establish strict liability, the following elements must be proven:
1. Dangerous Substance – A hazardous or unnatural substance must be brought onto the
land.
2. Escape – The substance must escape from the defendant’s premises.
3. Non-Natural Use of Land – The land must be used in a manner that is not considered
ordinary or natural.
4. Foreseeable Damage – The escape must cause foreseeable harm to the plaintiff.
Landmark Case: Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)
Facts:
• The defendant constructed a reservoir on his land, but it was built over abandoned mine
shafts.
• Water from the reservoir escaped through the shafts and flooded the plaintiff’s coal mine.
• The defendant had not been negligent, but the escape caused damage.
Judgment:
• The House of Lords ruled that since the defendant had brought a dangerous substance
(water) onto his land and it had escaped, he was strictly liable for the damage.
• Lord Cairns emphasized that strict liability applies when a person brings and collects
something likely to do mischief if it escapes.
Exceptions to Strict Liability
Although strict liability imposes absolute responsibility, certain exceptions apply:
1. Plaintiff’s Own Fault (Volenti Non Fit Injuria)
If the plaintiff consents to the risk or contributes to the harm, strict liability does not apply.
Case: Kiddle v. City Business Properties Ltd. (1942)
Facts:
• The plaintiff, Mr. Kiddle, was a tenant in a property owned by the defendant.
• A blocked gutter on the property caused rainwater to overflow and damage Mr. Kiddle’s
stock.
• Mr. Kiddle sued the landlord for the damages caused.
Judgment:
• The court held that Mr. Kiddle had impliedly consented to the risk by choosing to
occupy the premises.
• Since the issue was pre-existing and part of the condition when the plaintiff moved in, the
landlord was not liable.
Principle:
• A plaintiff cannot claim strict liability for damages arising from conditions they were
aware of and accepted.
2. Act of God (Vis Major)
If damage is caused by natural forces beyond human control, strict liability does not apply.
Case: Nichols v. Marsland (1876)
Facts:
• The defendant had artificial lakes on their land.
• An unprecedented rainstorm caused the lakes to overflow, damaging the plaintiff’s
property.
Judgment:
• Since the flooding was due to an act of God, the defendant was not held liable.
Principle:
• Natural calamities that are unforeseeable and unpreventable exempt the defendant from
strict liability.
3. Act of a Third Party
If the escape is caused by the wrongful act of a stranger, the defendant is not liable.
Case: Box v. Jubb (1879)
Facts:
• A reservoir overflowed due to a third party’s actions.
Judgment:
• Since the defendant had no control over the third party, they were not held liable.
Principle:
• Liability does not extend to unforeseeable actions of third parties.
4. Statutory Authority
If an activity is conducted under statutory provisions, liability may not apply.
Case: Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Co. (1894)
Facts:
• The defendant company, under statutory authority, maintained water pipes.
• A pipe burst, damaging the plaintiff’s property.
Judgment:
• Since the company was performing a duty imposed by law, they were not strictly liable.
Principle:
• Statutory obligations can provide immunity from strict liability.
Absolute Liability in Torts: Concept & Case Laws
1. What is Absolute Liability?
Absolute liability is a stricter form of the strict liability principle where an individual or entity
engaging in inherently dangerous activities is held liable for any resulting harm without
exceptions. Unlike strict liability, absolute liability does not allow for defenses such as act of
God, plaintiff’s negligence, or third-party interference.
It was formulated by the Supreme Court of India in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) in
response to the inadequacies of the Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) rule in modern industrial settings.
2. Distinction Between Strict Liability and Absolute Liability
Aspect Strict Liability Absolute Liability
Yes (e.g., Act of God, third-party fault,
Defenses Allowed? No defenses allowed
plaintiff’s negligence)
Compensation Compensation is not
Limited to damages proved in court
Limit? limited
Applies to hazardous
Applicability Applies to escape of harmful substances
industries
Land Requires escape of substance from
No such requirement
Requirement? defendant’s land
3. Landmark Case Laws on Absolute Liability
(A) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) (Oleum Gas Leak Case)
• Facts: In December 1985, oleum gas leaked from a unit of Shriram Foods and
Fertilizers in Delhi, affecting nearby residents and causing health hazards.
• Judgment: The Supreme Court introduced absolute liability for enterprises engaged
in hazardous industries.
• Principle Established: If an industry engages in a hazardous or inherently dangerous
activity and harm results, the industry is absolutely liable to compensate the
victims, regardless of precautions taken.
• Significance: The rule was established in response to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy
(1984), where thousands died due to a gas leak from Union Carbide’s plant.
(B) Bhopal Gas Tragedy (Union Carbide Case, 1984)
• Facts: A methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas leak from Union Carbide’s plant in Bhopal
killed over 15,000 people and caused severe injuries to thousands more.
• Legal Outcome: Although the case was settled through the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster
(Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, it paved the way for the Public Liability Insurance
Act, 1991, to ensure immediate compensation in case of industrial disasters.
• Principle: Large-scale industrial disasters require liability without any defenses to
ensure prompt compensation to victims.
(C) Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)
• Facts: Several chemical industries in Rajasthan discharged toxic sludge, polluting
groundwater and damaging surrounding villages.
• Judgment: The Supreme Court applied absolute liability and directed industries to
bear the full cost of environmental restoration.
• Significance: This case reinforced the principle that polluters must pay for
environmental damage caused by hazardous industries.
4. Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991
This Act was enacted in response to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy to provide immediate relief to
victims of hazardous industrial accidents without prolonged litigation.
🔹 Section 2(c): Definition of "Handling"
Handling includes:
1. Manufacturing, processing, treating, packaging, storing, or transporting hazardous
substances.
2. Any activity related to the use or disposal of hazardous substances.
This ensures that all stages of industrial activity involving hazardous substances are covered
under absolute liability.
🔹 Section 2(d): Definition of "Hazardous Substance"
• A hazardous substance is any material or preparation that can cause harm due to
its toxic, explosive, or flammable nature.
• These substances are notified by the central government.
This broad definition ensures that any industry dealing with hazardous substances falls under
absolute liability in case of an accident.
5. Conclusion
• Absolute liability is a no-exceptions liability rule for industries engaging in
hazardous activities.
• It was established in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) and reinforced in cases
like Bhopal Gas Tragedy and Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action.
• The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, provides immediate compensation, with
Sections 2(c) and 2(d) defining key aspects of handling hazardous substances.
STRICT LIABILITY UNDER MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
1. Concept of Strict Liability in Motor Vehicles Act
• Strict Liability means that the vehicle owner is liable to compensate the victim, even if
there was no fault on their part.
• The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 incorporates strict liability to ensure speedy compensation
for accident victims.
• Rationale: The person who owns or operates a motor vehicle is in a better position to
bear the financial burden of accidents than the injured victim.
Example:
• Suppose a driver is driving carefully at normal speed on the correct side of the road.
Suddenly, a pedestrian rushes across without checking and gets hit.
• Even though it was the pedestrian’s fault, the vehicle owner may still have to pay
compensation due to strict liability.
2. Who Benefits Under Strict Liability?
• Not just pedestrians, but any victim of a motor accident can claim compensation,
including:
o Passengers in a vehicle.
o Drivers/riders of other vehicles.
o Pedestrians.
• If two vehicles collide, the person who was not at fault can claim compensation from the
insurance of the at-fault vehicle.
• If the at-fault driver gets injured, they cannot claim compensation under strict liability.
3. Key Sections Under Strict Liability in Motor Vehicles Act
🔹 Section 140 – No-Fault Liability
• In case of death or permanent disability, the owner of the vehicle must pay
compensation, irrespective of fault.
• Compensation fixed by law:
o ₹50000 for death
o ₹25000 for permanent disability
• No need to prove negligence.
Example: A car accident kills a pedestrian. The victim’s family does not have to prove fault and
will receive the compensation under Section 140.
🔹 Section 141 – When Compensation Can Be Claimed Under Multiple
Sections
• If a claim is made under Section 140 (No-Fault Liability), the victim can also file a claim
under Section 166 (Fault-Based Liability).
• However, the amount received under Section 140 is deducted from the final compensation
awarded.
🔹 Section 142 – What Constitutes Permanent Disability?
• Defines permanent disability as:
o Loss of limbs, eyesight, or paralysis.
o Any disability preventing a person from earning their livelihood.
🔹 Section 143 – Application of Strict Liability
• No other law can restrict claims under strict liability.
• Even if the victim is partly responsible, they can still claim compensation.
🔹 Section 144 – Overriding Effect
• Provisions of strict liability override all other laws.
• Courts must ensure compensation is paid, regardless of other legal complexities.
4. Third-Party Insurance & Liability
What is Third-Party Insurance?
• Covers injury, death, or property damage caused to a third party.
• Mandatory under Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
• Does not cover damage to the insured vehicle.
Example: If a car hits a pedestrian and causes injuries, third-party insurance will compensate the
victim.
5. Drunk Driving & Rash Driving: Does Insurance Pay?
• Insurance will NOT pay if the driver was drunk or driving negligently.
• Exclusion Clauses in Motor Insurance:
o Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
o Over-speeding beyond legal limits.
o Driving without a valid license.
o Using a private vehicle for commercial purposes.
Example: If a driver crashes their car while drunk, the insurance company will reject the claim.
6. Liability in Rental & Hired Vehicles
Scenario 1: Rented Car Involved in an Accident
• Owner of the rental service is generally liable for third-party claims.
• If the renter was driving negligently, the renter may also be held liable.
Scenario 2: Students Rent a Bike & Cause an Accident
• The bike rental company must have third-party insurance.
• The student (renter) is liable if they were negligent.
• Sections that may apply:
o Section 140 (No-Fault Liability)
o Section 166 (Fault-Based Compensation)
o Section 185 (Drunk Driving Penalty, if applicable)
The Motor Vehicles Act underwent significant amendments in 2019 and 2022, particularly
affecting the provisions related to “no-fault liability.”
2019 Amendments:
The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, introduced several changes to enhance road safety
and streamline compensation mechanisms:
Compensation for Road Accident Victims: The Act increased the minimum compensation for
hit-and-run cases to ₹2 lakh in case of death and ₹50,000 for grievous injuries.
Motor Vehicle Accident Fund: A fund was established to provide compulsory insurance cover
to all road users in India, ensuring compensation for treatment during the golden hour, hit-and-run
cases, and other prescribed circumstances.
2022 Amendments:
In 2022, further amendments were made, notably impacting the “no-fault liability” provisions:
Removal of ‘No-Fault Liability’ Provisions: The amendments eliminated the provisions
pertaining to interim compensation awarded under “no-fault liability.” Previously, victims could
receive immediate compensation without proving the driver’s negligence. The new provisions set
compensation at ₹5 lakh for death and ₹2.5 lakh for grievous injuries, removing the need to prove
fault.
Introduction of a Limitation Period: A six-month limitation period for filing motor accident
claims was introduced, without provisions for condoning delays. This means victims must file
claims within six months of the accident.
Claims Process and Settlement: The amendments outlined a structured process for claims:
A designated officer oversees accident information to ensure authenticity and appropriate
valuation of the claim.
The insurance company’s designated officer must make a settlement offer to the claimant within
30 days, subject to approval by the claims tribunal.
If the claimant accepts the offer, the settlement is recorded, and the insurance company must pay
the amount within 30 days from the date of recording the settlement.
If the claimant rejects the offer, the claims tribunal will schedule a hearing to assess the claims on
their merits.
These amendments aim to expedite the claims process and ensure timely compensation for victims.
The removal of “no-fault liability” provisions and the introduction of a limitation period have been
subjects of legal challenges. For instance, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) Bar
Association filed a petition challenging these amendments, arguing that they adversely affect
accident victims’ rights to immediate relief and just compensation.
In summary, the 2019 amendments enhanced compensation amounts and established a Motor
Vehicle Accident Fund, while the 2022 amendments removed “no-fault liability” provisions,
introduced a limitation period for filing claims, and streamlined the claims settlement process.
Conclusion: Key Takeaways
✅ Strict & Absolute Liability ensure victims get compensation without proving fault.
✅ Third-party insurance is mandatory & covers liability for injury or property damage.
✅ Insurance does not pay for accidents caused by drunk driving or negligence.
✅ Rental vehicle accidents involve both the rental company & the driver.
