This article is written by Shobhit Chakravarty B.L.S., LL.B 1st year law student of KLE LAW College during his internship at Le Droit India.
Keywords
Environmental laws, Liability, Landmark judgements, Legal precedents, Legal concepts
Abstract
The evolution and origin of Absolute Liability is the best way to understand and analyze how legal concepts originate and evolve, a lot changed after the judgement of M.C. Mehta And Anr vs Union Of India & Ors case. The concept of Absolute Liability became the legal precedents of landmark judgements such as it Union Carbide Corporation vs Union Of India and many more it became the backbone of many environmental laws in the country.
Introduction to Absolute Liability
Absolute Liability may be defined as the application of Strict Liability without the inclusion of exceptions given in Strict Liability. Absolute Liability came into being after M.C. Mehta And Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 December 1986 popularly known as Oleum Gas Leak Case.
The concept of Absolute Liability evolved in India after the judgement was propounded by the then Chief Justice of India P.N. Bhagwati. The Supreme Court then evolved the rule of absolute liability on the rule of strict liability it stated that the defendant would be liable for the damage caused the court would not consider the exceptions to the strict liability rule.
If any harm is caused the person who is practising such activity will be absolutely liable. This concept of Absolute Liability became the backbone of many upcoming Environmental Laws and was used as a precedent while deciding Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case. Indian government with the viewpoint of ensuring the sufferers of such accidents get quick relief through insurance, the Indian Legislature passed the Public Liability Insurance Act in the year 1991.
The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991
Public Liability Insurance Act was passed in 1991, aimed for providing immediate relief to all those people who are the victims of those accidents in which the use of poisonous substances is involved.
The act aimed to create a public liability insurance fund which can be used to compensate the victims.
The Act states that any person who is carrying out inherently dangerous or hazardous activities should have insurance and policies in place where he will be insured against liability of providing compensation to the victims in case any accident takes place, and some injury occurs.
This liability is based on the principle of “no-fault liability” or in other words, the rule of strict liability and absolute liability. If any substance is dangerous or hazardous due to its handling also, then also the absolute liability of the defendant arises.
Absolute Liability has originated from Strict Liability. So for a better understanding of Absolute Liability one needs to know about Strict Liability.
What is Strict Liability?
The principle of Absolute Liability states that a person who is keeping any hazardous or poisonous substance on his premises shall be held responsible if by any accident the substance escapes and causes any kind of damage. The principle of strict liability evolved in the case of Rylands v Fletcher. The concept evolved in 1868.
The principle also states that the person will be held responsible it doesn’t matter how careful the person was in keeping the Hazardous substance safe. After the judgement pronounced in Rylands v Fletcher concept of Strict Liability came into being.
As it was the definition of Absolute Liability states that it is the application of Strict Liability without the inclusion of exceptions given in Strict Liability. Doesn’t this question strikes what are the exceptions of Strict Liability to tackle them a whole new concept of Absolute Liability was introduced?
The Exceptions to Strict Liability are
Act of God: “Act of God” can be defined as an event which is beyond the control of humans. Acts that cannot be prevented while exercising maximum precautions. In this case, the defendant will not be held liable if the hazardous substance escapes and any casualty occurs.
Consent of the Plaintiff: Violenti non-fit injuria
For instance, if Raman and Sheela are neighbours, and they share the same drainage tank which is built on the land of Sheela, and if the contaminated water escapes and causes damage to Raman’s property, he can’t claim damages, as Sheela wouldn’t be liable for the damage
Third-Party: If the damage is caused because of Third-party Defendant cannot be held liable.
If the defendant is not involved with the Third Party and does not hold any control over their work. There is a case for understanding this better Box v Jubb.
In this case, the reservoir owned by the defendant overflowed as a result of a blockage in the drain by a third party unknown to the defendant the court held that Defendant is not liable for the damage caused to the plaintiff as Defendant could not reasonably predict such a blockage.
What elements are required for absolute liability?
Essential Elements of Absolute Liability-
- Dangerous Thing- The definition of a Dangerous thing is that it possesses the potential to injure any person for the short or for long term the liability ought to only arise when the hazardous thing escapes from the area it has been stored. Some examples of dangerous things are explosives, chemicals, water, electric current, etc.
- Escape- Escape is one of the most important elements of Absolute Liability as absolute liability cannot be imposed until and unless a hazardous substance escapes from the defendant’s land and cause destruction or damage to the plaintiff. The best way to understand the element of escape is to understand Read v Lyons [1945].
Read v Lyons – Plaintiff was a worker in the defendant’s factory which produced explosives for the Ministry of Supply during the tenure of employment and an explosion occurred which ended in killing and injuring many there was no evidence of negligence from the defendant’s side. At the trial Judge held that the case was governed by Rylands v Fletcher but the Court of appeal reserved the decision saying, it missed the key element escape therefore Rylands v Fletcher cannot be imposed.
- Non-Natural use of land– Purpose, the purpose is what defines the Natural and Non-Natural use of land example water if it is used for domestic purposes then it will be termed as Natural use of land if it is not used for domestic purposes then it will be termed as Non-Natural use of land.
Ryland v. Fletcher will be a suitable case to understand it better, the court said that collecting water in a much larger quantity than required for domestic use amounts to non-natural use of land. If a person is growing an Apple tree on his land that is the natural use of land but when he starts growing a poisonous weed or illegal drugs then he would be using land for Non-Natural purposes.
4. Mischief- To make the person liable under this principle, the plaintiff at first needs to show that the defendant had done the non-natural use of land and escaped, it also needs to be shown that the hazardous thing escaped and caused damage.
If any person is to be held liable under the mischief principle it must be shown that the defendant had used the land for a non-natural purpose and the hazardous substance escaped and caused destruction.
If Charing Cross Electric Supply Co. v Hydraulic Power Co 1914 is taken into consideration -Defendant was given the duty to supply water at various places. The defendant was to hold minimum pressure but failed to do so which resulted in a burst of the pipeline at different places plaintiff suffered severe damages as a result the defendant was held liable knowing that he was not at fault.
BUT WHY?
A question arises “What was the need for the evolution of Absolute Liability when Strict Liability already exited” answering this question
- The need for Strictness – Strict Liability in today’s modern world was inefficient in making an individual strictly liable for his/her negligent acts as too many exceptions existed which acted as a loophole for an individual to get away from his wrong acts. So that’s how Absolute Liability evolved as it ended all the exceptions that made the individual strictly liable for his/her acts.
- Agricultural Country – According to the elements of Strict Liability use of land was categorized into two types Natural and Non-Natural and if water is stored in larger quantities it would become Non-Natural use of land but India is an agricultural country in which a large amount of water needs to be stored for irrigation and other purposes so evolution was needed to make Strict Liability more effective.
Difference between Absolute and Strict Liability
Differentiation between Absolute and Strict Liability needs to be understood to properly understand Absolute Liability.
Firstly: Strict Liability if seen from the perspective of Lands, applies only to the Non-Natural use of land but if a hazardous substance is used in a Natural use of land so Strict Liability cannot be applied here so Absolute Liability gains an edge as no exceptions are present.
Secondly: Absolute liability does not have an exception, Strict Liability has some exceptions. Union Of India vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors on 5 May 2008 the findings of the constitutional bench was that the rule of MC Mehta is not subject to any type of exception.
Thirdly: According to the principle of Absolute Liability, only those Industries shall be held responsible who are involved in Hazardous activities while those industries which are not involved in hazardous activities do not fall under Absolute Liability.
Scope of Absolute Liability:
- No exception exists
- Absolute Liability has a very wide scope.
- Deals with an individual who has occupied the land as well as the individual who has not occupied the land.
- Personal injuries are also covered along with public negligence.
Conclusion
The principle of Absolute Liability makes it possible that a person can be liable when he/she is not at fault under another principle of “no-fault liability”. The principle is apt for India which also explains its origin and evolution. Absolute liability became a deciding factor in several cases is it Union Carbide Corporation vs Union Of India Etc, Shriram vs Mitaben, The State Of Tripura vs The Province Of East Bengalunion, etc. The scope of Absolute Liability is very wide which widens the scope of the law and as no exceptions are present in Absolute Liability it removes all the loopholes that were present in Strict Liability.
REFERENCES
