Strict Liability and Absolute Liability: Introduction In 1868, Justice Blackburn in case of Rylands V. Fletcher laid down the stri…
Strict Liability and Absolute Liability:
Introduction
In 1868, Justice Blackburn in case of Rylands
V. Fletcher laid down the strict liability as in the Ryland’s case certain
exceptions were introduced But in India, in 19th century with the
leak of Oleum gas from Shriram Food and Fertilisers Ltd. in Delhi, the Supreme
Court opened new horizons for fixing the liability. The rule laid down in the
year 1868 was not blindly followed and Justice Bhagwati opened a new dimension
of liability and called it Absolute Liability- A liability without any
exception and in furtherance to this judgment, Public Liability Insurance Act was
enacted.
V. Fletcher laid down the strict liability as in the Ryland’s case certain
exceptions were introduced But in India, in 19th century with the
leak of Oleum gas from Shriram Food and Fertilisers Ltd. in Delhi, the Supreme
Court opened new horizons for fixing the liability. The rule laid down in the
year 1868 was not blindly followed and Justice Bhagwati opened a new dimension
of liability and called it Absolute Liability- A liability without any
exception and in furtherance to this judgment, Public Liability Insurance Act was
enacted.
Strict
Liability
Liability
According to the rule of strict
liability, where a person for his own benefit, brings on his land and collects
and keep 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 consequence of its escape.
liability, where a person for his own benefit, brings on his land and collects
and keep 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 consequence of its escape.
This
rule is also called as rule laid down in Ryland’s V. Fletcher.
rule is also called as rule laid down in Ryland’s V. Fletcher.
Essential
elements of strict liability are
elements of strict liability are
1. Non Natural use of
land
land
The use of land if increases the damage
to others and is not an ordinary use of land on such a use is not made for the
benefit of the community.
to others and is not an ordinary use of land on such a use is not made for the
benefit of the community.
For e.g. Growing trees on land, doing
necessary wiring is natural use.
necessary wiring is natural use.
2. Escape of
dangerous thing from defendants land.
dangerous thing from defendants land.
The principal of strict liability
arises when the things escape out of the control and occupation of defendant
and causes damage to the plaintiff.
arises when the things escape out of the control and occupation of defendant
and causes damage to the plaintiff.
Exceptions
1.
Act
of God
Act
of God
2.
Act
of Stranger
Act
of Stranger
3.
Default
of the plaintiff
Default
of the plaintiff
4.
Common
benefit
Common
benefit
5.
Statutory
Authority
Statutory
Authority
The
rule does not apply where the deferent is empowered or authorized or required
under the law to accumulate, keep or collect the dangerous things which escape
or cause mischief and injury to the plaintiff.
rule does not apply where the deferent is empowered or authorized or required
under the law to accumulate, keep or collect the dangerous things which escape
or cause mischief and injury to the plaintiff.
CASE LAW: RYLANDS VS FLETCHER
A, the owner of a mill, employed a
contractor to construct a reservoir over his land to provide water to his mill.
While digging and constructing the reservoir, the contractor failed to notice
some disused shafts under the site of the reservoir and as such did not block
them up. Shortly after the water was filled in the reservoir, it broke through
some of the shafts and flooded B’s (the plaintiff’s) coalmines on the adjoining
land. Held, A was liable in respect of the damage caused to B even though the
damage was caused not due to the negligence of A, but to the negligence of the
independent contractor.
contractor to construct a reservoir over his land to provide water to his mill.
While digging and constructing the reservoir, the contractor failed to notice
some disused shafts under the site of the reservoir and as such did not block
them up. Shortly after the water was filled in the reservoir, it broke through
some of the shafts and flooded B’s (the plaintiff’s) coalmines on the adjoining
land. Held, A was liable in respect of the damage caused to B even though the
damage was caused not due to the negligence of A, but to the negligence of the
independent contractor.
1.
Default of the Plaintiff
Default of the Plaintiff
Case Law :
Ponting V. Noakes: The
plaintiff horse reached over the defendants boundary and nipped some poisonous
trees and died. It was held that the defendant was not liable, for the damage
was due to horse’s own intrusion.
Ponting V. Noakes: The
plaintiff horse reached over the defendants boundary and nipped some poisonous
trees and died. It was held that the defendant was not liable, for the damage
was due to horse’s own intrusion.
2.
Consent
of the plaintiff
Consent
of the plaintiff
Case Law :
N. Natayanan Bhattathiripad V. Travancore Gov.
N. Natayanan Bhattathiripad V. Travancore Gov.
It was held by the court that as the
plaintiff had agreed to the construction of the dam, he cannot later on turn
around and lodge complaints that the presence of the dam has a source of injury
to his property.
plaintiff had agreed to the construction of the dam, he cannot later on turn
around and lodge complaints that the presence of the dam has a source of injury
to his property.
3.
Common Benefit
Common Benefit
Case Law : Carstairs V. Tylor
The defendant, who was the landlord of the
plaintiff and lived in the upper storey, maintained a water box for the benefit
of both. One day it leaked without the negligence of the defendant and damaged
the plaintiff’s goods. It was held that since the water was used by Plaintiff
and defendant. The defendant would not be liable.
plaintiff and lived in the upper storey, maintained a water box for the benefit
of both. One day it leaked without the negligence of the defendant and damaged
the plaintiff’s goods. It was held that since the water was used by Plaintiff
and defendant. The defendant would not be liable.
4.
Act
of stranger
Act
of stranger
Richard V. Lothian
A stranger deliberately blocked up to
waste pipe of a lavatory in the defendants premises, thereby flooding the
plaintiff premises. It was held that Defendant is not liable.
waste pipe of a lavatory in the defendants premises, thereby flooding the
plaintiff premises. It was held that Defendant is not liable.
Absolute Liability
The rule of absolute liability was laid
down by the S.C. of India in M.C. Meta V. U.O.I. AIR 1987, S.C 965 leakage of
oleum gas from one of the units of Shriram Food and Fertilisers Ltd.
down by the S.C. of India in M.C. Meta V. U.O.I. AIR 1987, S.C 965 leakage of
oleum gas from one of the units of Shriram Food and Fertilisers Ltd.
On 1st January, 1987 an
important development took place in India when Justice Bhagwati in the case of
M.C. Mehta v. UOI, revolutionized the law laid down is strict liability. He did
not follow the principal laid down in Reylands V. Fletcher on the grounds that
those principles are not in keeping with the present day jurisprudential
thinking.
important development took place in India when Justice Bhagwati in the case of
M.C. Mehta v. UOI, revolutionized the law laid down is strict liability. He did
not follow the principal laid down in Reylands V. Fletcher on the grounds that
those principles are not in keeping with the present day jurisprudential
thinking.
Facts :- There was escape of Oleum gas
from one of the units of Shriram Shriram Food and Fertilisers Ltd. on 4th
& 6th December 1985, the Delhi legal aid & advice boards
D.B.A. filed applications for a ward of compensation to the persons who had suffered
harm on account of escape of oleum gas.
from one of the units of Shriram Shriram Food and Fertilisers Ltd. on 4th
& 6th December 1985, the Delhi legal aid & advice boards
D.B.A. filed applications for a ward of compensation to the persons who had suffered
harm on account of escape of oleum gas.
The question before the court was to
fix liability of an enterprise engaged in Hazardous or inherently dangerous
industry. Court decided that the liability of enterprises to be absolute.
fix liability of an enterprise engaged in Hazardous or inherently dangerous
industry. Court decided that the liability of enterprises to be absolute.
Recent Trends
Recently in cases like M.P. electricity board V. Shail Kumari AIR 2002 (1): 5
and Mushtaq Ahmed V. state of Jammu & Kashmir AIR 2009, J & K 29.
Recently in cases like M.P. electricity board V. Shail Kumari AIR 2002 (1): 5
and Mushtaq Ahmed V. state of Jammu & Kashmir AIR 2009, J & K 29.
The basis of fixing liability in above
two cases was foreseeable risk inherent
in the very nature of such activity.
If the electric energy is not properly controlled would result in risky expose
to human life.
two cases was foreseeable risk inherent
in the very nature of such activity.
If the electric energy is not properly controlled would result in risky expose
to human life.
Practice Exercise:
1.
The gas that leaked in the famous case of M.C Mehta v. Union of India
is?
The gas that leaked in the famous case of M.C Mehta v. Union of India
is?
A. Methyl Isocyanate
B. Nitrogen
C. Oleum
D. Hydrogen
Ans: C
2. The case in India that laid
down the rule of absolute liability was?
down the rule of absolute liability was?
A. M. C. Mehta v. Union of India
B. Rylands v. Fletcher
C. N. Natayanan Bhattathiripad V.
Travancore Gov.
Travancore Gov.
D. Ponting V. Noakes
Ans: A
3.
The rule of strict liability was laid down in
The rule of strict liability was laid down in
A. M. C. Mehta v. Union of India
B. Rylands v. Fletcher
C. N. Natayanan Bhattathiripad V.
Travancore Gov.
Travancore Gov.
D. Ponting V. Noakes
Ans: B
4. Where a person for his own
benefit, brings on his land and collects and keep 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 consequence of
its escape. This is the rule of
benefit, brings on his land and collects and keep 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 consequence of
its escape. This is the rule of
A. Vicarious liability
B. Strict Liability
C. Absolute Liability
D. None of the above
Ans: B
5.
The exceptions to the rule of strict liability are?
The exceptions to the rule of strict liability are?
A. Act of God
B. Default of the plaintiff
C. Common benefit
D. All of the above
Ans: D
6. The plaintiff horse reached
over the defendant’s boundary and nipped some poisonous trees and died. Will
the defendant be liable?
over the defendant’s boundary and nipped some poisonous trees and died. Will
the defendant be liable?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Maybe
D. None of the above
Ans: B
7.
The plaintiff had agreed to the construction of the dam, can he later on
turn around and complain that the presence of the dam has a source of injury to
his property?
The plaintiff had agreed to the construction of the dam, can he later on
turn around and complain that the presence of the dam has a source of injury to
his property?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Maybe
D. None of the above
Ans: B
8. The defendant, who was the
landlord of the plaintiff and lived in the upper storey, maintained a water box
for the benefit of both. One day it leaked without the negligence of the
defendant and damaged the plaintiff’s goods. Will the defendant be liable?
landlord of the plaintiff and lived in the upper storey, maintained a water box
for the benefit of both. One day it leaked without the negligence of the
defendant and damaged the plaintiff’s goods. Will the defendant be liable?
A. Yes
B. No
Ans: B
9. A stranger deliberately blocked
up to waste pipe of a lavatory in the defendants premises, thereby flooding the
plaintiff premises. Will the defendant be liable?
up to waste pipe of a lavatory in the defendants premises, thereby flooding the
plaintiff premises. Will the defendant be liable?
A. Yes
B. No
Ans: B
10. The rule of strict liability does not apply
where the deferent is empowered or authorized or required under the law to
accumulate, keep or collect the dangerous things which escape or cause mischief
and injury to the plaintiff.
where the deferent is empowered or authorized or required under the law to
accumulate, keep or collect the dangerous things which escape or cause mischief
and injury to the plaintiff.
A. True
B. False
Ans: A
