INTRODUCTION
The two concepts of strict liability and absolute liability, which are a part of tort law, are of utmost importance since they not only seek to compensate the victims but also compel the authorities involved in the administration and production of substances that are inherently harmful to human life to anticipate potential hazards and take appropriate preventive and precautionary measures.
The doctrine of absolute liability has a crucial role to play in environmental law because without it, it would be impossible to protect the environment, foster its growth, and provide justice for those victims who have become mired in the process of obtaining compensation. While the idea of strict liability has some flaws that make it easier for the offender to avoid the harshness of the penalty, the absolute liability is used to make the offender answerable to the authorities. The main objective of this paper is to highlight the difference between the two principles through a comparative study of the two principles as well as show their relevance under Environmental Law.
STRICT LIABLITY
According to the law, someone is strictly accountable if they bring or accumulate something on their property that could cause harm if it were to escape and damage results as a natural result of such escape without the plaintiff having to demonstrate neglect or wrongdoing.[1]
Essentials of Strict Liability:-
- Dangerous substance – As per the principle established, in order to hold the defendant strictly liable for a tort, a dangerous substance (anything which is likely to cause mischief if it were to escape from the defendant’s land) must have necessarily been brought by the defendant on his land; for example – explosives, gas, electricity, etc. In Rylands vs Fletcher, the large body of water stored by the defendant was held to be “dangerous”.
- Escape – Another essential ingredient to establish the tort is the dangerous thing’s escape from the premises occupied and controlled by the defendant. Let’s say if Mr. A plants a poisonous tree in his garden and a few of its branches extend and get leaned towards his immediate neighbor Mr. B’s land. Consequently, Mr. B’s cattle end up feeding on some leaves of such projected branches and die. The defendant, Mr. A shall be held strictly liable as it was his duty to ensure that the branches of the poisonous tree brought by him to his land do not grow into the neighbor’s premises and he must have taken reasonable care by trimming the branches regularly.
- Non-natural use of land – In order to constitute this, it is important to note that the premises of the defendant must be subject to some special use or work (not being ordinary in nature) which poses a threat to others in the surrounding area of such premises. For example, such a huge amount of water stored in the in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, a poisonous tree being grown on one’s premises, a piece of land being used to display fireworks to spectators, electrical wiring in houses[2] all constitute “non-natural use of land”. Needless to say, whereas water stored in such a huge amount as in Rylands v. Fletcher comes under non-natural use of land, water stored for household chores comes under an ordinary and natural use of land.
Exceptions to this principle :-
Plaintiff’s Fault: The defendant would not be held accountable if the plaintiff is at fault and any harm results due to plaintiff’s contributory negligence.
Act of God: An event that is uncontrollable by any human action is what is meant by the phrase “act of God.” Even with prudence and forethought, such acts cannot be stopped because they only occur for natural reasons. If the harmful substance escaped due to an unforeseeable, uncontrollable natural event, the defendant shall not be held responsible for the consequent damages.
Act of the Third Party: Similarly, the principle is not applicable in cases where the harm occurred as a consequence of the act of some third party. The term “third party” denotes a person who is neither employed by the defendant nor is subject to his control or bound by any contract. But the defendant must exercise due care and caution in cases when the actions of the third party can be predicted and foreseen. He will be held liable in case he fails to do so.
Statutory Authority
A strong defence against a tort claim is any action taken in furtherance of a law or other regulation. However, this defence cannot be used if the person acting under the authority of a statute was negligent.
The landmark case law that evolved the principle of strict liability was Rylands vs Fletcher[3].
Facts – The plaintiff, who possessed a property with an active coal mine, was situated across from the defendants, who built a reservoir on their property and owned mills in Lancashire. Without the defendants’ knowledge or following proper procedures, a contractor that the defendants hired built the reservoir over improvised shafts and an unstable, abandoned mine. Through a filled-in shaft of an abandoned mine, water from the reservoir seeped into the coal mine on the plaintiff’s property, flooding and harming the functioning mine there.
Issue – Whether the defendant was liable for negligence despite there being no proof of his negligence?
Judgement – The defendant was held liable even though he did not have any knowledge of the shafts and had not been negligent. Further held, only “non-natural” uses of one’s land would be subject to the strict liability principle. The emphasis must switch from the propensity for water to leak from the property of the defendant to the non-natural use of constructing a reservoir next to a coal mine. In case any damage results from the failure of a legitimate work that, given its nature is uncommon, non-natural, or unsuitable, strict liability shall be applied.
Criticism – The strict liability’s defences and the aforementioned essentials serve as a loophole allowing the offender to evade his liability by depending upon the exceptions. Because of its adaptability and casual approach to making the defendants accountable, the primary motive of the principle has clearly failed thus making it outdated and futile.
We are well aware that an ammunition plant poses a unique threat due to the fact that it deals with numerous flammable and toxic substances. As a result, they need to exercise extreme caution when making and processing these shells and bullets.[4] Even a worker who is there only for employment purposes is entitled to his right to a safe environment under his right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. If a worker’s life is endangered due to an unforeseen incident, the offenders should be held entirely accountable as they owe the workers a “duty of care”. Such factories are required to abide by the absolute liability principle since the workers have a right to safety as well as a claim for compensation for bodily harm. A person works in such a plant in order to maintain the wellbeing of himself and his family. It is unjust to deny them their right to damages regardless of whether the dangerous substance fled the premises of the defendant.
ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
In response to the Oleum Gas Leak and the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, our country decided it became crucial to create an effective mechanism to deal with such extraordinary circumstances, where the offenders must be forced to take accountability for their actions that led to such significant losses.[5] Simply put, the rule of absolute liability is the strict liability rule with the exceptions removed.
Essentials of this principle :-
- Dangerous Substance
- Its escape outside or inside the premises of the defendant
- Inherently dangerous substance – The possession of a hazardous material on the land serves as the main characterizing factor of absolute liability. This indicates that if the defendant possessed a dangerous material on his property, regardless of its intended use, the defendant would be entirely responsible if the substance escaped from his property. The nature of the thing in question is where the liability primarily lies instead of its use.
Exceptions under Absolute Liability – There are no exceptions provided under this principle. Thus, Absolute Liability = Strict Liability – Exceptions.
The landmark judgement of MC Mehta v Union of India[6]evolved this principle.
Facts – Mr. M.C. Mehta, a social activist, filed a Writ petition to close Shriram Industries since it was producing some hazardous materials and was situated in a tightly-knit area with a high population density. By coincidence, the same industry in 1985 experienced a leak of oleum gas from one of its units, resulting in one death and numerous injuries.
Issue – Whether an organisation that works in a dangerous or intrinsically hazardous industry shall be held liable for torts caused by it and if yes, to what extent? Do the Strict Liability defences apply?
Judgement – When an organisation undertakes a dangerous or inherently hazardous activity and an accident occurs consequently harming people, such organisation shall be absolutely and entirely responsible to indemnify the victims for their sustained losses of such an accident such liability shall not be subject to any of the defences provided under Strict Liablity principle. The quantum of compensation to be given to the victims shall be determined based on the size and prosperity of the organization.
Criticism – As a result, the strict liability rule’s potential was not expanded because it was archaic and obsolete. Due to the existence of exceptions, this rule did not apply universally; in other words, it allowed the defendant to avoid taking responsibility rather than punishing him for it. Since it violates the fundamental right to a safe and healthy environment, the rule is incoherent. In fact, Union Carbide Corporation used one of Strict Liability exceptions (Act of a third party) in order to defend itself against the damages’ claims of the Bhopal tragedy victims. It was hypothesised that a dissatisfied worker at the company may have caused the gas to escape. The strict liability principle readily offered a defence to the defendant in such a situation. But ultimately, Chief Justice Bhagwati declared in the MC Mehta case that such businesses engaged in the business involving inherently dangerous substances would be entirely accountable for the escape of such substances resulting in damges/injuries to the employees or the general public, defying the principle of Strict Liability and its exceptions.
Highlighting the main differences between the Strict Liability and Absolute Liability principles, it can safely be concluded that :-
- Whereas in the former, “non-natural” use of land is considered while evaluating liability, in the latter it is the possession of hazardous or inherently dangerous objects.
- Whereas in the former, the escape of the dangerous substance is of prime importance, and it cannot be made applicable to damage caused inside the property of the defendant, in the latter, the sheer use of a dangerous goods is enough to subject the party to this rule; the escape of such dangerous substances is not necessitated. It covers harm done to individuals both within and outside the defendant’s property.
- Whereas the former principle has some defences that can be used by the defendant to prove himself innocent, the latter principle does not leave any scope of defence to the defendant and makes him absolutely liable for the damages caused by him.
- Whereas the former solely applies to the non-natural use of land, the latter applies to the natural as well as the non-natural use of land.
- In contrast to the former, where compensatory damages are paid to the plaintiff based on the type and extent of the harms they suffered, in cases of absolute liability, the victims receive exemplary damages that are much higher because the defendants are typically held accountable for the health of the public and the environment.
- The Absolute Liability principle was developed in India in 1987 when the courts recognised the loopholes of Strict Liability principle, whereas the Strict Liability concept was developed in England in 1868.
CONCLUSION
Strict liability and absolute liability may be viewed as exemptions to the general rule in legislations – “only when someone is at fault can they be held liable.” The primary idea behind these two laws is that a person can be held liable even in the absence of his fault (no-fault liability). According to these principles, despite the defendant not being negligent in his actions, he would still be held liable for any harm resulting from his actions. Whereas Strict Liability offers certain ready defences to the defendant, the same is not the case with Absolute Liability which holds the defendant absolutely liable for the harm caused by him.
Never should the right to a safe environment be compromised in the name of convenience or financial gain. It is crucial for us to understand the importance of environmental and labour legislations which govern the liability of defendants and protect the environment as well as the industry workers in the event of an industrial mishap. The poor laborers and factory workers must not be exploited in the name of employment and growth just because they consent to being a part of the workforce of the industries undertaking inherently dangerous activities. Whereas Absolute Liability goes a long way in protecting their interests, strict liability does not. There must be an additional responsibility of care for the industry workers when handling and producing hazardous materials. We must never abdicate our duty to safeguard an ever-growing India’s core workforce against industrial tragedies like the Bhopal Gas tragedy.
–This article is written by Mohika Srivastava ,3rd year student of Symbiosis Law School, Noida.
[1] R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts 324 (Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, 24th edn., 2018).
[2] Collingwood v. Home and Colonial Stores Ltd., (1936) All. E.R. 200.
[3] Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330
[4] Read v. Lyons (1947) AC 156 House of Lords
[5] Shyam Divan and Armin Rosencranz, Environmental Law and Policy in India 105-106 (OUP, New Delhi,
2020)
[6] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 965
