Liability

By Dr. Bijoy Sharma

Introduction (“strict
liability” or “No-Fault Liability”)
The concept of strict liability was introduced in the
late nineteenth century.
It has been evolved from the concept of negligence
which generally refers to a careless activity.
It involves a duty of care towards one’s neighbours
and breach of such duty results into damage
caused to the neighbours.
If there is negligence on the part of the defendant,
he/she is held liable to compensate the plaintiff for
the damage caused.
Whereas, under strict liability, the defendant is held
liable irrespective of the presence of any
negligence on his part.
 Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)
Strict liability was initially introduced in the
case of Rylands v. Fletcher in 1868.
The case was treated as an aspect of nuisance
or a special rule of strict liability. The
defendant, in order to improve his water
supply, constructed a reservoir by employing
reputed engineers. There was negligence on
the part of contractors that they didn’t seal the
mine shafts which they came across while
constructing the reservoir due to which water
flooded into plaintiff’s coal mine resulting into
damage to the mines of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff sued Fletcher for damages. The
engineers were independent contractors and
thus were not held liable.
Justice Blackburn J. held the defendant liable by
introducing the concept of strict liability which
states that “The rule of law is that 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 in at his
peril; and if he does not do so is prima
facie answerable for all the damage which is the
natural consequence of its escape.”
It simply means that the defendant will be
held liable without any negligence or ‘fault’
on his part.
Thus it was proved out to be a ‘No fault
liability’. It does not matter if the defendant
has intended to cause such damage or not.
Essentials of Strict Liability
 this principle held a person strictly liable if the following essentials are
applicable simultaneously:
 Some dangerous thing must have been brought by a person on
his land: It is necessary that the thing brought on the land is dangerous.
A dangerous thing is defined as something which poses an exceptionally
high risk to the neighbouring property such as electricity, vibrations,
explosives etc.
 It must be non-natural use of land: It is the unusual use of land which
amounts to special hazards, judged by the standards appropriate at the
relevant place and time such as constructing a water reservoir.
 The thing thus brought or kept by the person must escape: It is
essential that the thing causing damage must escape in the area outside
the occupation or control of the defendant such as the escape of
extremely dangerous wild dogs from an individual’s property in the
locality.
 The damaged caused should be foreseeable to the
defendant: Foreseeability of damage is essential to claim damages in
cases of strict liability such as accidents in a cracker factory in very much
foreseeable to the owner as well as workers of the factory.
Exceptions to Strict Liability

 Act of God: Acts which are occasioned by the forced nature and cannot
be controlled by the agency of men such as earthquake, lightning,
severe frost, storm etc. Comes under the category of the act of god.
 The wrongful act of the third party: The defendant cannot be held
liable if the damaged caused is due to an inevitable accident or wrongful
act of a third party.
 Plaintiff’s own fault: The defendant cannot be held liable in case
damage caused to the plaintiff is because of his own default. For
example, if the plaintiff enters into defendant’s garden without his
permission and consumes some toxic fruits which caused damage to his
health.
 Artificial work maintained for the common benefit of both
plaintiff and defendant: The defendant cannot be held responsible
for damage caused by a source which was equally beneficial to the
plaintiff or either consented by the plaintiff such as sharing the same
building or a common water resource.
 Acts of statutory authority: no one can be held liable for doing acts
which the legislature has authorised provided it is done without any
negligence on their part such as a municipal corporation.
Some Indian Cases where the rule
of Rylands v. Fletcher was cited
State
of Punjab v. Modern cultivators, AIR 1965 S
C 17
Jay Luxmi Salt Works (p.) Ltd. V. State of
Gujrat, (1994) 4 SCC 1
Indian Council for Enviro
-Legal Action v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC
1446
Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai
(1987) 3 SCC 234
(escape of the dangerous
thing):
Read v. J. Lyons & Co. [3]
In this case, the defendant took control of the
management of an ordinance factory where highly
explosive shells for the government were made. An
explosion inside the factory caused damage to the
plaintiff and several others.
When plaintiff asked for damages under the
principle of strict liability, since there was no
negligence on the part of the authorities, THE
HOUSE OF LORDS upheld the decision and said that
although there was an unnatural use of land, no
escape of dangerous thing occurred. Thus, no
compensation was granted on part of the defendant.
M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (“Absolute
Liability” or “No Liability”
The case was related to the leakage of oleum gas
from one of the units of Shriram Foods and fertilizer
industries which lead to several deaths and injuries
in Delhi and NCR region.
The petitioner M. C. Mehta filed a PIL under Article
32 of the Indian constitution against the dangerous
effects of the chemicals used in the factory.
Moreover, the Delhi legal aid and advise board
claimed compensation for the damages so caused.
The court asked the company to pay the
compensation and to shut down the factory in those
regions and introduced a new concept of “Absolute
Liability”.
Concept of Absolute Liability
Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or
inherently dangerous activity and it results in harm to
anyone on account of an accident which was caused in
the operation of such hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity.
 This will make the enterprise absolutely liable to
compensate all those who are affected by the accident
and such liability is not subject to any of the
exceptions or any Strict liability principle as held in the
case of Rylands v. Fletcher.
For example, if there is an escape of toxic gas, the
enterprise is strictly or absolutely liable to
compensate all those who are affected by the accident
with no exception to the case.
The court earlier pointed out this duty
is “Absolute and non-delegable” and
the enterprise cannot escape liability by
showing that it had taken all reasonable
care and there was no negligence on its
part and thus is named as “No liability”
Reasoning given by the court in its
judgement:
The judgement made on 20/12/1986 by the
supreme court in the bench of three judges
including CJ P. N. Bhagwati, D. P. Madon and G .L.
OZA gave the following justification:
The law so laid by the English govt. in case of
Rylands v. Fletcher was justifiable according to the
demands of law at that time. But it is not necessary
or binding to the Indian government to strictly follow
the rule so laid in the late 19th century because in
the modern industrial society with highly developed
scientific knowledge and technology, where it is
necessary to run hazardous or inherently dangerous
industries as a part of the development programme.
The basis of the new rule as
indicated by the supreme court was:
If an enterprise is allowed to carry on any
hazardous activity, it is presumed that such
permission is conditional on the enterprise
absorbing the cost of any accident arising
on account of such hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity as an appropriate item
of its overheads.
The enterprise alone has the resource to
discover and guard against hazards or
dangers and to provide warning against
potential hazards.
Cases citing the case of “M. C.
Mehta v. Union of India”
Jagdish v Naresh Soni, (2007) 3 MPHT 234
Vellore citizens Welfare Forums and others v. Union of
India and another 2016
Indlaw MAD 4514, 2016 (4) MLI 25
Charudatt Pandurang Koli
and others v Sea lord Containers Limited, Mumbai an
d others 2015
Indlaw MAD 849
Jaipur
Golden Gas victim Association v Union of India and o
thers 2009
Indlaw
DEL 2902, 2010(1) ACC 141, 2011 ACJ 1879, 2009 (1
64) DLT 346
Vimal Bhai
and others v Union of India and others 2009 Indlaw
Conclusion
The principle of strict liability, later to be
known as absolute liability, was established
as the principle of “No Liability”.