Rule in Rylands v Fletcher

Dangerous thing
Escape
Non-Natural Use of land
Exceptions to the Rule
Position in India and
Absolute liability
Environment Pollution
Strict liability is a theory that imposes legal responsibility for damages or injuries even if the person who was found strictly
liable did not act with fault or negligence. This theory usually applies in three types of situations: animal bites (in certain
states), manufacturing defects, and abnormally dangerous activitiesIn criminal and civil law, strict liability is a
standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity
even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant.
In the field of torts, prominent examples of strict liability may include product liability, abnormally dangerous
activities (e.g., blasting), intrusion onto another's land by livestock, and ownership of wild animals. Traditional
criminal offenses that require no element of intent (mens rea) include statutory rape and felony murder
Raylands v Fletcher 24 Nov. 251, 52 P. 274,1898 Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff sued in connection with the flooding of his mine. The trial court found in his
favor. Defendant sought review.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A person who for his own purposes brings on his lands 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.
Facts. Plaintiff owned and operated a mine adjacent to which Defendant constructed an artificial pond. The latter caused a mine shaft collapse, which resulted
in a flood, and damaged Plaintiff’s operation. The plaintiff sued, the matter was brought before an arbitrator to independently establish facts. The trial court
found for Plaintiff; the appellate court affirmed; Defendant appealed to the House of Lords, which also affirmed.
Issue. Was the use of Defendant’s land unreasonable and thus was he to be held liable for damages incurred by Plaintiff?
Held. The lower court judgment was affirmed, stating in essence that the Defendant’s use of the land was unreasonable, engaged in without proper caution,
and resulted in harm to the Plaintiff.
Concurrence. The concurrence states more clearly the rule to be applied (see above), noting also that more than the due care which was owed to plaintiff, at
issue was the factual determination of damage: “[w]hen one person in managing his own affairs causes, however innocently, damage to another, it is obviously
only just that he should be the party to suffer.”
Discussion. The Rylands court considers the manner in which the Defendant used the land and concluded such use was “non-natural” what modern courts
have described as inconsistent land use, i.e., when a party inflicts non-reciprocal risks on another. Nineteenth century English law was stricter than current
law, in which trespass liability ordinarily requires the physical intrusion onto property, and nuisance law requires “continuing” and “permanent” activity (such
as industrial activity that causes airborne pollution
Rules of Strict Liability
or rule in Raylands v Fletcher case
Strict liability is a theory that imposes legal responsibility for damages or injuries even if the person who was found strictly liable did not act with fault or
negligence. This theory usually applies in three types of situations: animal bites (in certain states), manufacturing defects, and abnormally dangerous activities.
the rule Rylands v Fletcher, where it was held that "any person who for his own purposes brings on his lands 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". If the owner of a zoo keeps lions and tigers, he is liable if the big cats escape and cause damage or injury.
Abnormally Dangerous Conditions or Ultrahazardous Activities
Strict liability is also imposed when somebody creates an abnormally dangerous condition or performs ultrahazardous activities, and something goes wrong
that causes an injury to another person. Certain activities are considered inherently dangerous. These are activities that involve serious potential harm, involve
a high degree of risk that cannot be adequately protected against by using reasonable care, and are not commonly performed in the community or under the
circumstances. For example, it is not common to store explosives and flammable liquids in a city apartment.
What Must the Plaintiff Prove to Win?
In order to win a strict liability lawsuit, the plaintiff must show the following:
•The plaintiff must show proof of injury;
•The plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s actions or product caused the injury; and
•The plaintiff must show that the defendant’s activities were unreasonably hazardous or that the defendant had no control over the product.
For the application of the rule, three essentials must be proved
•Dangerous thing
•Escape
•Non-Natural Use of land
1)Dangerous thing ,
are Gas, electricity, vibrations, yew trees, sewage, flag pole, explosives, rusty wires, noxious fumes
Abnormally Dangerous Activities
People or entities (such as a construction company, or manufacturing company) who engage in abnormally dangerous activities, often referred to as
“ultrahazardous activities,” may be held strictly liable for injuries caused to others by the activity. In order to qualify as an abnormally dangerous activity, the
courts generally consider these elements:
Did the activity involve a substantial risk of harming a person or property?
Was the activity of such a nature that it could not be performed without risk of causing serious harm, regardless of how much care is taken to avoid it?
Is the activity commonly engaged in by the average person in the community?
The defendant will be held strictly liable only if a “dangerous” substances escapes from his premises.
For the purpose of imposing strict liability, a dangerous substance can be defined as any substance which will cause some mischief or harm if it escapes. Things
like explosives, toxic gasses, electricity, etc. can be termed as dangerous things.

Examples of abnormally dangerous activities:

Blasting or explosive demolition activities
Storing explosives
Using or transporting certain chemicals, such as combustibles and acids
Disposing of hazardous chemical wastes
Production or containment of radioactive emissions
Performing controlled burns
Certain product defects

2)Escape One more essential condition to make the defendant strictly liable is that the material should escape from the premises and shouldn’t be within the
reach of the defendant after its escape.
For instance, 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. it was held that if there is no escape, the
defendant cannot be held liable.
Read v Lyons Company

3.Non-natural use of land

Electric wiring in a house or a shop, supply of gas in gas pipes in a dwelling house, water installation in a house are the
examples for natural use of land
Noble v Harrison
T.C.Balakrishnan Menon v T.R. Subramanian, 1968
Noble v. Harrison. Kings Bench Division. 18th May 1926. Rowlatt and Wright JJ.
This case involved a branch falling onto a highway.On July 12th 1925 one of the plaintiff's motor coaches was being driven along a public road adjacent to the
defendants property. The weather was fine and calm. Without any warning, a large branch fell from an 80 year old Beech tree growing on the defendants land. The
branch hit the motor coach and caused damages. The branch had snapped at a distance of 15ft from the trunk and was not dead. It was discovered that the branch
had broken at a point where decay had formed through a crack or split but this was not readily visible from the ground. In fact the defendant had appointed a
competent woodsman to inspect his trees during the previous winter and this particular tree was considered safe. The plaintiff sought damages for nuisance and
breach of duty at Brighton County Court where the judge held that the defendant was not liable for negligence but was liable for nuisance using the principle laid
down in Rylands v. Fletcher where an owner must be responsible for damage caused by the escape of a dangerous article from his property.
The defendant appealed.
The appeal was granted. It was judged that an overhanging branch does not necessarily constitute a nuisance unless it interferes with the passage of traffic and that
although it became a nuisance after it fell, the owner was not aware of the defect which caused this nuisance. Additionally, it was judged that the principles laid
down in the Rylands v. Fletcher case were not applicable here
To constitute a strict liability, there should be a non-natural use of the land. In the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, the water collected in the reservoir was considered to
be a non-natural use of the land. Storage of water for domestic use is considered to be natural use. But storing water for the purpose of energizing a mill was
considered non-natural by the Court. When the term “non-natural” is to be considered, it should be kept in mind that there must be some special use which
increases the danger to others. Supply of cooking gas through the pipeline, electric wiring in a house, etc. is considered to be the natural use of land. For instance, if
the defendant lights up a fire in his fireplace and a spark escapes and causes a fire, the defendant will not be held liable as it was a natural use of the land.
These three condition needs to be satisfied simultaneously to constitute a strict liability.

Act done by an Independent contractor

Generally, an employer is not liable for the wrongful act done by an independent contractor. However, it is no defence to the application of this rule that
the causing damage had been done by an independent contractor.
T.C.Balakrishnan Menon v T.R. Subramanian, 1968
Tort – Negligence – Display of fire-works on a Maidan – Minnal Gundu’, a fire explosive, falling in midst of crowd and causing injury to an onlooker –
Applicability of principle of ‘res ipsa loquitur’ – Liability for act of independent contractor – Defences of natural user of Maidan and Volunti non fit injuria.
Where a minnal gundu falls in the midst of a crowd and bursts causing injury to an onlooker, negligence on the part of the person who is responsible for making
and firing it must be presumed. Even if the negligence is not established, the principle that the thing itself speaks must apply because minnal gundus are normally
to fly sufficiently high into the sky perpendicularly before they explode and not to fly at a tangent, fall amidst of the crowd and burst.(Para 5)
The minnal gundu is an explosive and is therefore an “extra-hazardous” object; and persons who use such an object, which, in its very nature, involves special
danger to others, must be liable for the negligence of the independent contractor engaged by them. The duty to keep such a substance without causing injury to
others is a “non-delegable” duty; and the users cannot escape liability for the breach of such a duty by engaging an independent contractor.The liability of the
users can also be based on the rule enunciated by Blackburn, J. in the famous case of (1868) 3 H. L. 330.
To collect minnal gundus and explode them on a Maidan on a festival day is not a natural user of Maidan; because under the Indian Explosives Act, for
making and storing explosive substances even on a Maidan on a festival day licences have to be taken from the prescribed authorities. Everyone in the big
crowd of a few lakhs witnessing fireworks anywhere in a maidan cannot be considered as a volunteer to witness the fireworks and hence the principle of
volunti non fit injuria cannot apply
Exceptions
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.
Ponting vs. Noakes, (1894) 2 QB 281 The claimant’s horse died after it had reached over the defendant’s fence and ate some leaves from a Yew tree. The
defendant was not liable under Rylands v Fletcher as the Yew tree was entirely in the confines of the defendant’s land and there had therefore been no escape. Charles, J:"I do not
see that they can be made responsible for the eating of these Yew leaves by an animal which, in order to reach them, had come upon his land. The hurt which the animal received
was due to his wrongful intrusion. He had no right to be there and the owner therefore has no right to complain.
Eastern and South African Telegraph Co.Ltd v Capetown Tramways Co, 1902
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- Facts
The claimant rented premises on the second floor of a building which was used for commercial purposes and ran a business from the premises he was renting. The defendant was the
owner of that building. He leased the building in parts to various business tenants. The case arose because someone had maliciously blocked all the sinks in the toilets on the fourth
floor of the defendant’s building. The same person had then turned on all the taps, clearly with the intention of causing a flood and therefore causing damage. Eventually the flooding
on the fourth floor travelled down to the second floor and damaged the property of the claimant. The claimant then started the case, basing himself on the rule in Rylands v Fletcher
arguing that he had suffered damage as a result of the escape of the water from the defendant’s premises.
Issue
The issue in this case was whether a finding of non-natural use of land and Rylands v Fletcher liability could be found where an escape (which otherwise might constitute such
liability) was caused by the malicious actions of a third party, rather than of the Defendants. Also at issue was whether water in this context could be seen as something not naturally
on the land which had been brought to it by the Defendant.
Held
The court held the Defendant to not be liable. First, water supplied to a building is a natural use of the land. The rule of Rylands v Fletcher requires a special use of the land.
Second, Rylands v Fletcher liability will not be found where the damage was caused by a wrongful and malicious act of a third party

Box vs. Jubb, (1879) 4 Ex D 76

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
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.
Carstair v Taylor, 1871
Peters vs. Prince of Wales Theatre Ltd. Birmingham, (1942) 2 ALL ER 533

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 76Box v Jubb LR 4 EX Div 76
The defendant had a reservoir on their land. There was another reservoir situated at a higher level than the defendant’s. The owner of this other reservoir emptied it through a drain connected
to the defendant’s reservoir causing the defendant’s reservoir to overflow and damage the claimant’s land. The claimant brought an action under Rylands v Fletcher contending that there was
a non natural user of the land and that there had been an escape of water that caused damage.

Held:The defendant was not liable for the damage as it was caused by the act of a third party over which the defendant had no control.

Chief Baron Kelly:“The question is, what was the cause of this overflow? Was it anything for which the Defendants are responsible? Did it proceed from their act or default, or from that of a
stranger over which they had no control? The case is abundantly clear on this, proving beyond a doubt that the Defendants had no control over the causes of the overflow and no knowledge of
the existence of the obstruction. The matters complained of took place through no default or breach of duty of the Defendants, but were caused by a stranger over whom and at a spot where
they had no control. It seems to me to be immaterial whether this is called vis major or the unlawful act of a stranger; it is sufficient to say that the Defendants had no means of preventing the
occurrence. I think the defendants could not possibly have been expected to anticipate that which happened here and the law does not require them to construct their reservoir and the sluices
and gates leading to it to meet any amount of pressure which the wrongful act of a third person may impose” 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- A water main belonging to a waterworks company, which had been authorized by Parliament to lay
the main, burst. There had been no negligence on the part of the waterworks company. The claimants’ premises were flooded but the waterworks company was held to have no liability. The
owner of land is, as an exception to the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher, not liable for damage caused by works executed under statutory authority.
Lindley LJ said the decision in Rylands decision ‘is not to be extended beyond the legitimate principle on which the House of Lords decided it. If it were extended as far as strict logic might
require, it would be a very oppressive decision.’
Products Liability
To be successful in making a products liability claim under strict liability, the plaintiff must prove that there was a defect in the product when it left the defendant’s
possession. He must also prove that he was a logical and foreseeable user of the product who used the product as it was intended. Additionally, the plaintiff must
prove that he was injured by use of the product, and that it was caused by the product’s defective nature.
There are three primary types of defect in products liability cases:
Manufacturing Defects – an irregularity or flaw in a product that was mass-produced, the defect of which makes it more dangerous. When a manufacturer sells a
product in defective condition, it is strictly liable for any damages or injuries that the product causes. Having used reasonable care to prevent defects is not a valid
defense in such cases.
Design Defects – at times an entire product line is defective as a result of faulty design. The manufacturer of such products is absolutely liable for injuries or
damages caused by the products. In addition, it may be held liable for any foreseeable injuries that could occur due to the design defect, if there is a cost-effective
way to reconstruct the product to make it safe, but the manufacturer continues to produce and sell the defective items.
Failure to Warn – a product manufacturer is responsible for warning consumers if there is an inherent, but not obvious, danger in using the product. For instance,
the manufacturer of chocolate raisin bars makes the bars in a plant that also processes peanuts. Because it is common for some residue to remain in the
equipment, which has the potential to cause serious injury or death to some people, the manufacturer must warn consumers about the possible presence of
peanuts
cases involving injuries caused by manufactured goods, strict liability has had a major impact on litigation since the 1960s. In 1963, in Greenman v. Yuba Power Pr
oducts, 59 Cal. 2d 57, 377 P.2d 897, the California Supreme Court became the first court to adopt strict tort liability for defective products. Injured plaintiffs have t
o prove the product caused the harm but do not have to prove exactly how the manufacturer was careless. Purchasers of the product, as well as injured guests, bysta
nders, and others with no direct relationship with the product, may sue for damages caused by the product.
An injured party must prove that the item was defective, that the defect proximately caused the injury, and that the defect rendered the product unreasonably danger
ous. A plaintiff may recover damages even if the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of the product.
In tort law strict liability has traditionally been applied for damages caused by animals. Because animals are not governed by a conscience and possess great capacit
y to do mischief if not restrained, those who keep animals have a duty to restrain them. In most jurisdictions the general rule is that keepers of all animals, includin
g domesticated ones, are strictly liable for damage resulting from the Trespass
of their animals on the property of another. Owners of dogs and cats, however, are not liable for their pets' trespasses, unless the owners have been negligent or unl
ess strict liability is imposed by statute or ordinance.
For purposes of liability for harm other than trespass, the law distinguishes between domesticated and wild animals. The keeper of domesticated animals, which inc
lude dogs, cats, cattle, sheep, and horses, is strictly liable for the harm they cause only if the keeper had actual knowledge that the animal had the particular trait or
propensity that caused the harm. The trait must be a potentially harmful one, and the harm must correspond to the knowledge. In the case of dogs, however, some ju
risdictions have enacted statutes that impose absolute liability for dog bites without requiring knowledge of the dog's viciousness.
Keepers of species that are normally considered "wild" in that region are strictly liable for the harm these pets cause if they escape, whether or not the animal in questio
n is known to be dangerous. Because such animals are known to revert to their natural tendencies, they are considered to be wild no matter how well trained or domesti
cated.
Strict liability for harm resulting from abnormally dangerous conditions and activities developed in the late nineteenth century. It will be imposed if the harm results fr
om the miscarriage of an activity that, though lawful, is unusual, extraordinary, exceptional, or inappropriate in light of the place and manner in which the activity is co
nducted. Common hazardous activities that could result in strict liability include storing explosives or flammable liquids, blasting, accumulating sewage, and emitting t
oxic fumes. Although these activities may be hazardous, they may be appropriate or normal in one location but not another. For example, storing explosives in quantity
will create an unusual and unacceptable risk in the midst of a large city but not in a remote rural area. If an explosion occurs in the remote area, strict liability will be i
mposed only if the explosives were stored in an unusual or abnormal way.

1. in
tort and delict, liability without proof of fault, i.e. that the mere happening of a proscribed event incurs liability but always subject to certain defence. The defence reco
gnized in common law cases are:(i) act of the Queen's enemies;
2.(ii) Act of God, or in Scotland damnum fatale;
3.(iii) the intervention of a third party.
English law has historically supported many instances of strict liability, as did (and still, to an extent, does) Scots law. In English law the main instances are liability for
nuisance, non-
natural user of land, the escape of fire and, at common law, for wild animals (ferae naturae). In Scotland it has now been established that neither nuisance nor non-
natural user are instances of strict liability but are instead governed by the concept of fault, with the exception, until the matter comes up for decision, of the diversion
of the course of a natural stream. Liability is still strict in matters covered by the Praetorian edict in respect of innkeepers, carriers and stable-
keepers, although both in Scotland and in England the hotel proprietor, as defined, is given some exemptions from the rigours of strict liability, as indeed is the carrier.
Some UK
legislation imposes forms of strict liability that sometimes, because of the absence of defence, goes as far as to be appropriately described as absolute liability. The
UK
has three main instances of statutory strict liability- the liability of the employer for employees in certain circumstances the keeper for animals in certain circumstance
s; and producers and others for defective products in certain circumstances. There are others, less commonly invoked, including nuclear occurrences, oil pollution and
‘regular’ pollution.
2 in contract. Generally, liability in contract is to perform to the letter of the contract, so liability is often said to be strict. However, the parties may expressly or by imp
lication have agreed that, for example, only reasonable care ought to be exercised. The doctrine of frustration operates to free a party in certain cases from the obligatio
n.
3 in criminal law, strict liability is an exception to the general rule of liability, which usually demands that it is essential to show mens rea. However, many statutory cri
The law recognizes the differences between domesticated animals and wild animals in considering whether a circumstance is subject to absolute liability. There are
otherwise three categories of animals subject to strict liability:
Livestock
The owner of livestock, which refers to animals that are generally kept as an asset, rather than a pet, is liable for any physical harm or damages caused by an animal’s
intrusion onto someone else’s property. This might occur if:
•a few head of cattle broke through their fence, then wandered through a neighbor’s alfalfa crop, eating and trampling it.
•a passing car hits a horse that has come through a broken fence and wandered out onto the road
•failure to notify neighboring farms of, and to take adequate precautions to contain, a diseased herd.
Dogs in General
Dogs are special, in that they intersect two categories: livestock, and dangerous animals. While dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years, some are
capable of causing serious injury or damages. If an individual has a dog, regardless of breed, that is known to be dangerous, it falls under the category of “dangerous
animals” for strict liability purposes.
Under the livestock category, an individual’s dogs may subject the owner to absolute liability in such circumstances as:
•A farm dog wanders off its property to kill livestock belonging to a neighboring farm
•A friendly and excited dog jumps up on a visitor, startling her, and causing her to stumble and fall
•A dog trained to guard the owner’s property attacks a utility worker as he attempts to read the home’s utility meter
In each of these cases, a normally friendly and useful dog has caused some type of damages or injury that were not necessarily the owner’s fault. The laws of most
states hold dog owners responsible if their dogs bite any person, regardless of the situation or perceived fault. Each of these situations requires the dog’s owner to pay
for the damages incurred by others at the “paws” of his dog.
Dangerous Animals
This category refers to any pet or other animal that the owner knows has dangerous or violent tendencies. The owner may be strictly liable for any injuries or
damages caused by the animal, even if he is not at fault. Commonly thought-of examples of dangerous animals include dogs kept for fighting or serious protection,
such as pit bulls and Rottweilers.
Dogs are not the only animals that may fall under this category, however. Situations and animals that may subject the owner to strict liability include:
•a housecat that is known for attacking small children who visit the home
•a parrot that is not social, and has previously attacked a visitor with its deadly claws
•It is not the species or breed of the animal under this category, but its known propensity for violence, that subjects the owner to strict liability.
Wild Animals
someone in possession of a wild animal is liable for harm done by the animal to someone else’s person or property, even if the person possessing the animal has taken
great care to ensure it is confined to prevent it from doing harm. In the eyes of the law, wild animals are those that have not been widely domesticated, regardless of
how long the animal has lived in a captive environment. Examples of wild animals include coyotes, badgers, rattlesnakes, monkeys, elephants, lions, tigers, and
Defenses to Strict Liability Cases
When faced with a civil lawsuit or criminal charges of strict liability, a defendant may attempt to prove certain circumstances existed that would alleviate him of
the strict liability obligation.
Assumption of Risk
Assumption of risk refers to situations in which a plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risks inherent in a certain dangerous activity, when he chose to
participate. This may apply in extreme sporting activities, such as sky diving and rock climbing. It may also apply to a plaintiff employed in a fundamentally
dangerous profession. Because the injured party in both of these scenarios knew beforehand of the dangers and risks, yet made a conscious choice to engage in the
activity anyway, strict liability does not apply.
For example:
Lamar is employed by the local utility company, where he is offered an opportunity to advance to the position of lineman. The promotion brings a hefty salary
increase, but it requires extensive training, as the job is a dangerous. Lamar happily takes the promotion, but one year later, he falls from a high-reach aerial
basket, breaking his back. Lamar would like to hold his employer responsible because they have people working in dangerous conditions.
In this example, there was no fault, no faulty equipment, and no blame on the company. Because Lamar had been clearly advised of the dangers of the job before
he accepted the position, the company is not responsible under strict liability.
Contributory Negligence
In most civil lawsuits for negligence, the plaintiff’s careless actions do not prevent recovery of damages. Unless, that is, the plaintiff knowingly subjected himself
to the risky activity.
For example:
Marco is annoyed by the neighbor’s pit bull, which barks at the fence every time his family is trying to enjoy their back yard. Marco begins taunting the dog,
shoving a rock through a break in the fence near the ground. The dog pushes his snout through and grabs Marco’s hand, leaving a nasty bite that must be treated at
the emergency room.
If Marco attempts to sue the neighbor for medical expenses and other damages, based on strict liability, as the dog is obviously dangerous. Marco is unlikely to
win his case, however, as he knew the dog might be dangerous before he intentionally taunted the dog to wind him up into a frenzy. Marco’s decision to put
himself in harm’s way was unreasonable.
Strict Liability in Prescription Drug Case
In 1999, the mega pharmaceutical company Merk released their new non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (“NSAID”), Vioxx.
Hailed as the newest and greatest answer to the aches and pains of arthritis and menstrual pain, Vioxx proved to be disastrous
for the many patients who suffered strokes, heart attacks, and death while taking the drug.
While Merk denied their medication caused these problems, a study by the University of Michigan Medical School, referred to as
“VIGOR,” proved an astounding correlation between taking Vioxx, and seriously increased risk of heart attack and stroke.
Merk refused to recall the drug, but eventually agreed to change the label, warning patients of the potential risks associated with
taking the drug. In 2004, a second study, in the form of a clinical trial, confirmed that people taking Vioxx worldwide developed
severe cardiovascular problems. Merk was finally forced to implement a global recall of Vioxx, but by that time, as many as 25
million people in the U.S. alone were taking the dangerous drug.
This strict liability case falls into the category of design defects. In this strict liability case, the formulation of the drug itself was
defective, placing everyone who took it in harm’s way. Once the connection was made, individuals who suffered damages
because they were taking Vioxx could sue the company under strict liability, with no need to prove that it acted negligently.
The case also falls into the “failure to warn” category, as evidence was provided that Merk’s own scientists had expressed
concern over the fact that the drug dramatically increased the risk of heart attack and stroke
Rule of Absolute Liability
The Supreme Court applied a stricter version of the rule of strict liability in the case of MC Mehta v. Union of
India (1987). In this case, harmful Oleum gas had escaped from a factory owned by Shriram Foods &
Fertilizer Industries. The gas had caused a lot of damage to people and industries nearby.
The Supreme Court held that, despite being so stringent, the strict liability rule was inadequate in modern
times. This is because scientific advancements have made modern industries even more dangerous and
hazardous. Hence, the court laid down the absolute liability rule in this case.
According to the absolute liability rule, no exceptions of strict liability shall apply in certain cases. Therefore,
the people who cause damage will have unlimited liability to compensate victims adequately. Courts in India
have applied this rule in many cases to create deterrence In a tort, whenever the wrongdoer has done any wrong then
he/she has to provide compensation to the victim, this compensation, basically termed as a liability. This liability is also known as the
liability ‘without fault’. In this, a person is liable because he uses something Hazardous. When because of these types of things anyone
suffers from loss or damage then the wrongdoer is absolutely liable without any fault at his or her part. If associate degree trade is
engaged in some variety of dangerous activity from that it’s explanation industrial gain which activities, somehow, ends up in mass
damage or hurt, then, the liability is that the absolute liability
Law ought to be dynamic and keep ever-changing consistent with the requirements of recent world. It will not be appropriate to use
centuries recent principles and laws on gift cases and incidents because the world is changing or up in terms of technology, economic
activities, behaviour, culture and in overall the least bit aspects. The conception of Absolute liability was additionally evolved within the
same manner where economic activities and industrial enterprise in today’s frame is way totally different from what it had been in the
past. So, the principle of ‘No Fault Liability’ was introduced that is that the base for absolute liability conception. In the Republic of India,
the requirement for such a principle arose out of unfortunate tragic incidents like ‘ Bhopal Gas Leak Case’ and ‘Oleum Gas Leak
Case’ wherever the Supreme Court of the Republic of India stepped in and commenced to carry this principle of absolute liability that
truly evolved from the principle of ‘ No Fault liability’ in English law.
So, we will have an easy formula for absolute liability
i.e. Absolute liability = Strict liability – Exception
Absolute Liability:
This liability is extremely kind of like strict liability however here are few major differences which are
as follows:
1. The magnitude of the destruction: within the absolute liability, the destruction is mass
destruction, while in strict liability, this destruction is restricted on the extent.
2. Defence against the Tort: within the Absolute Liability, there’s no defence whereas in strict
liability, the tort-feasor will set the defence (an act of god being one among them).
In India, this principle was foremost command by Supreme Court of India just in case of MC Mehta
V. Union of India, additionally referred to as oleum gas leak case et al that function a landmark
judgement within the history of by Indian Judiciary
In the month of December 1985, there was a run of oleum gas from one among the units
of Shriram Food And Fertilizers, Delhi that killed an advocate and a number of others and severe
disabilities and diseases to several, even once generations the youngsters wherever born out of
deformities as a result of this accident. The apex court during this matter refused to follow the
principle of strict liability and came with a replacement philosophical system of absolute liability
wherever the aggrieve parties ought to be paid while not accessibility of any defence. The apex court
additionally took the view that it won’t be appropriate to use the principle of strict liability within the
case of Rylands vs. Fletcher, a two-century previous philosophical system in gift epoch of industry
wherever there require a lot of stricter laws and principles to stop such accidents and to guard normal
people.
The Supreme Court came with the philosophical system of absolute liability that is wider than the rule
of ‘ no-fault liability’ and additionally solves problems associated with workmen operating underneath
unsafe conditions and their compensation. Once the Oleum gas leak incident The Public Liability
Essentials of Absolute Liability:
1.Dangerous Thing–
As per the foundations set down, the liability of escape of a thing from an individual’s land can arise only if the issue that is
collected could be a dangerous issue that’s an issue that possible causes injury or injury to people personally or their property on its
escape. In numerous torts cases that have happened everywhere the globe, the philosophy of strict liability has controlled an
outsized body of water, gas, electricity, vibrations, sewage, flag-pole, explosives, degrading fumes, rusty wires etc. are sure things
that return below the reach of dangerous things.
•Escape–
Something that has caused injury or mischief ought to have at large from the world that was below the management of the suspect
to return below the reach of absolute liability. love it happened within the case of Read vs Lyons and Co. wherever the
complainant was working as an employee in the defendant’s company that was engaged in producing shells. The accident
happened whereas she was on her duty that day among the company’s premise. It happened once a chunk that was being factory-
made there exploded and thanks to that the complainant suffered hurt. when this incident and a case was filed against the
suspect’s company however the court eventually relinquishing the defendant and gave the decision that strict liability isn’t
applicable here during this explicit case. This was declared by the court as a result of the explosion that came about was among the
defendant’s premises and not outside. and also, the thought says that it ought to have at large the harmful issue like shell here
from the boundaries of the suspect premise that didn’t happen and was missing up here. So, the negligence on a part of the suspect
couldn’t be well-tried within the court.
•Non-natural use of land–
Water collected toward land for domestic functions doesn’t quantity to non-natural use of land however if one is storing it in
massive quantities like during a reservoir because it was the case in Ryland vs Fletcher then it amounts to non-natural use of
land. The distinction between natural and non-natural use of land by keeping in mind the encircling social conditions. As the
growing of trees and plants on land is examined as a natural use of land but if one starts growing trees which are poisonous in
nature then it will be examined as non-natural use of land. If a problem arises between the suspect and also the complainant even if
the suspect is victimization the land naturally, the court won’t hold the suspect to blame for his conduct.
•Mischief-
To form the person liable below this principle, the complainant initially has to show that the suspect had done the non-natural use of
land and at large the harmful issue that he has on his land that resulted within the injury any. within the case of Charing Cross
Electric Supply Co. vs Hydraulic Power Co. ,the suspect was allotted to provide water for industrial works. However, he was
unable to stay their mains charged with a minimum pressure that was needed that crystal rectifier to the exploding of the pipeline
at completely different places. This resulted in inflicting serious injury to the complainant that was well-tried within the court of law.
Scope of Rule of Absolute Liability:
In most of the places, the rule of strict liability and absolute liability square measure seen as
exceptions within the law. And also, the individual is command liable only he/she is guilty. But, in such
cases, the individual can be command guilty notwithstanding he’s not guilty. When the harmful
accident of Oleum Gas Leak case the act of The Public Liability Insurance Act 1991 was
introduced with the most purpose of providing immediate relief to those that square measure victims
of the accident during which handling of unsafe substances is concerned. The agenda behind this act
was that the act can produce a public insurance fund which is able to eventually be used for the aim of
compensating the victims. Unsafe substance below this act is outlined as any substance that by
reason of its chemical or any properties is vulnerable to cause any harm to men, alternative living
creature, plants, organism, property or to the atmosphere. The term handling is delineated in section
2(c) of The Public Liability Insurance Act 1991 that is that the clear expression of the rule of
absolute liability set down in M.C Mehta vs Union of India

Absolute Liability vs. Strict Liability:

Whereas principle of strict liability permits exceptions if the liability has been increased by an Act of God, act of third party etc.,
absolute liability offers no exception to the industries involved in dangerous activities.
Under absolute liability, the extent of damages is exemplary and depends on the magnitude and financial capability of the
institute, however, under strict liability, compensation is payable as per the nature and quantum of damages caused.
Under the philosophical system of absolute liability, the part of escape isn’t essential. In alternative words, rule of absolute
liability shall be applicable to those wounded at inside the premises and person outside, that isn’t within the case of strict
liabilit