This article is written by Ritwick Kundu, LL.B., 2nd year, Bharati Vidyapeeth during his internship at LeDroit India.
Keywords – Strict liability, absolute liability, Justice Blackburn, Torts, Rylands, Fletcher, Made in India, no fault liabilities.
Abstract –
The world of law is ever-changing hence the rules and laws are adapted and adopted as per the times and needs of the people. While working on these lines the judiciary has created a category of liability which is known as no-fault liabilities. The two rules related to this category are strict liability and absolute liability. Strict liability was introduced in England and absolute liability was introduced in India as well, so, in a polite way, we can say that absolute liability is made in India rule.
Torts : Law is a very diverse thing and takes care of every aspect of the legal life of a person. Law at the same time is also adaptive and adaptive in nature, it is a continuous ongoing process. The Law of torts is a perfect example of that law is an ongoing process. Law of torts is an uncodified law, i.e., it does not have any sections or articles, etc… It provides the remedy for twisted unlawful acts and it provides remedies (compensation) for damages (injuries) it is a part of civil law, generally, dealing with private wrongs, not public crimes (Indian Penal Code, 1860) deals with it.
Salmond defines Torts as, “It is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common-law action for unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a trust or other merely equitable obligation”.
As torts are a flexible, ongoing part of the law, therefore, it provides you with two very important concepts of, i.e., ‘strict liability and ‘absolute liability.
Strict liability –
It means that when a person is in danger by some other person, even if he/she is not directly connected with the incident (accident). A person here is in possession of a dangerous product, animal or weapon, etc. The burden of proof is on the defendant in strict liability.
Strict liability applies when the three things happen :-
- Dangerous thing – when any unnatural/non-natural use of land takes place. Even if a person is in possession of certain types of animals is liable for injuries if the animal destroys the living or the non-living property of the plaintiff.
- Escape – if that dangerous thing escapes from the perimeter of the defendant’s property.
- Prima facie liability – here, the owner of the thing is enough to prove the liability.
The rule of strict liability evolved from the judgment of the case of Rylands v/s. Fletcher, 1868. In this case, Rylands was the plaintiff and Fletcher was the defendant.
Case facts are – Rylands and Fletcher were neighbors. Fletcher owned a mill and Rylands owned a mine. Fletcher one day hired independent contractors and engineers to build a reservoir on his property. In the due process of building the reservoir, the contractors and engineers found mine shafts underneath the property of Fletcher but they ignored it and continue building the reservoir.
Now, one day the water from the reservoir pour go in the shafts and water flooded the nearby property of Rylands, hence, destroying the mines and causing a huge loss to Rylands. Rylands in turn filed a lawsuit against Fletcher. Fletcher in the court stated two defends, firstly, he was not aware of the mine shafts, and secondly, he was not responsible for the incident as the contractors were independent.
After hearing both the parties, the House of Lords decided that Fletcher have to compensate Rylands for the damages he suffered because the reservoir was a non-natural thing and water from it escaped to Rylands property and as Fletcher is the owner of the property, who hired the contractors, is here fully liable. The House of Lords here introduced a new rule of law in torts, i.e., the ‘strict liability.
Justice Blackburn (judge in the case) stated, “We think that the rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands 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 damages which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was the consequences of vis major, or the act of GOD; but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient”.
In India, the rule of strict liability was adopted in the case of T.C. Balakrishnan Menon v/s. T.R. Subramanian. In this case, the defendant was T.C. Balakrishnan Menon and the plaintiff was T.R. Subramanian. The defendant was making crackers out of some coconut shells, for which he also hired a local person who was making them. One day the cracker went out from the defendant’s property, hence, the person (plaintiff) from the crowd was injured, hence, filed a case against the defendant. The court stated that this case was a case under strict liability, so, the defendant had to pay the compensation to the plaintiff.
From the statement of Justice Blackburn, we also derived some exceptions to the rule of ‘strict liability that are as follows:-
- In case the plaintiff’s fault – the person filing a case is himself/herself/themselves at fault. Case law – Ponting v/s. Noakes – They both were neighbors. Here, the defendant has planted some wild trees which are hazardous if someone consumes the leaves of the tree. The plaintiff had a horse, the horse escapes the property of the plaintiff and enters the property of the defendant, and started eating the leaves, hence, at last, the horse dies and the plaintiff files a case against the defendant for compensation. But here, the honorable court stated that as the wild trees were within the perimeter of the defendant and did not escape, so, the defendant is not allowed to pay the compensation to the plaintiff.
2) Mutual benefits – the person filing a case is consciously agreeing to harm his/her property.
- Act of G.O.D. – the incidents/events beyond the control of human beings. Case law – Nichols v/s. Marsland – the defendant, and the plaintiff were neighbors. The defendant builds an artificial lake on his ground. One day it rained heavily and the water of the lake escaped the defendant’s perimeter and entered the plaintiff’s property, thus, damaging the property. Plaintiff filed a case against the defendant but here the court stated that as rainfall is of human control, so, the defendant won’t have to pay any compensation to the plaintiff.
4) Act of a stranger – if a stranger (like thief/robber) entered the property of the defendant and starts damaging the property/thing which in future harms the plaintiff. Here, the entry into the property should be without the defendant’s permission and the defendant should not be aware of it.
5) Statutory authority – government/state officials, organizations, rules, etc. are under this point. Basically, when the sovereign acts are taking place.
Apart from the rule of ‘strict liability, there is also the rule of ‘absolute liability which was introduced by Justice Bhagwati in the Union carbide v/s. The Union of India (the famous Bhopal gas tragedy incident) and the influence of the Oleum gas from Shriram foods & fertilizers Industries, Delhi, Delhi Cloth Hills LTD… Here, the defendant does not have a defense or exceptions to hide behind, unlike strict liability. In absolute liability, the quantum of damages is directly proportional to the size of the enterprise. Strict liability is applicable to individuals and organizations but absolute liability is not applicable to individuals to date.
Conclusion:-
The law of torts is a developing concept and the rule of strict liability and absolute liability are perfect examples of it. Strict liability is when the defendant is liable to pay the compensation to the plaintiff. But the defendant does have certain defends available to him/her/them to at least try to save themselves but the absolute liability does not give that space to the defendant. The magnitude of these rules is very high and is generally, applicable to extraordinary cases and not in any normal case. Here, also courts and judges are evolved more in making rules that are applied by the courts on the cases which are on the same lines. Hence, we term these rules as no-fault liabilities.
References :-
- https://www.toppr.com/guides/legal-aptitude/law-of-torts/the-rule-of-strict-liability/
- https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4532-liability-strict-liability-absolute-liability-and-vicarious-liability-under-law-of-tort.html
- https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-dobbs/the-development-of-common-law-strict-liability/rylands-v-fletcher/
