Rajiv Gandhi National University Of Law,

Punjab

Topic: Recent Scenario Of Strict Liability in India

Submitted to: Sunbmitted By:

Dr. Jaswinder Kaur Jasmine Singh
Assistant Professor of Law 19102
RGNUL First Year
Table of Contents

Introduction

Historical Aspect
2.1 Rylands v. Fletcher
2.2 Limitation and Extention of the Rule

Essentials and Applicability

3.1 Dangerous Thing
3.2 Escape
3.3 Non-Natural Use of Land
3.4 Applicability

Difference between Strict Liability and Negligence

5.1 Modifications in Strict Liability Rule
5.2 Difference between Strict and Absolute Liability
5.3 Cases in which Absolute Liability was upheld

Defence/Exceptions available against Strict Liability Rule

Conclusion

Bibliography
Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5
Historical Aspect..................................................................................................................... 5
Essentials and Applicability .................................................................................................. 6
Dangerous Thing ............................................................................................................ 7
Escape ............................................................................................................................ 7
Non-Natural Use of Land ............................................................................................... 7
Applicability ................................................................................................................... 8
Difference between Strict Liability and Negligence ............................................................ 8
Transformation of Strict Liability into Absolute Libility .................................................. 8
Modifications .................................................................................................................. 9
Differences between Strict and Absolute Liabilty .......................................................... 9
Cases in which Absolute Liability was upheld ............................................................... 9
Exceptions to Strict Liability ............................................................................................... 10
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 12
Acknowledgement
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Professor(Dr.) Paramjit Singh Jaswal, hon’ble
Vice Chancellor, Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law for giving me the opportunity to
learn through projectwork on the topic, “Recent Scenario of Strict Liability in India” and for
providing for the facilities to work successfully on the project.

I would also like to thank Dr. Jaswinder Kaur, Assistant Prof. of Law, RGNUL for her able
guidance and support throughout.

Thanks to the Library staff for helping me out as well.

Finally, a big thanks to my friends who kept on encouraging me on to give my best to this project.

Jasmine Singh
Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law
First Year
What is Law?
Laws are a set of rules and guidelines formulated in a society to govern its behaviour.
According to Collins Dictionary, “The law is a system of rules that a society or government
develops in order to deal with crime, business agreements, and social relationships.”

What is Law of Torts?

Law of Torts refer to the uncodified law governing the remedies for the torts committed under
Common Law. Its violation is compensated through unliquidated damages.

What is a Tort?
A tort is a civil wrong which results in violation of a legal right of an individual. It is a private
wrong for which unliquidated damages are given.
According to John Salmond, “Tort is a civil wrong for which remedy is a common law action for
unliquidated damages, and which is not exclusively the breach of contract, or the breach of trust, or
other merely equitable obligation.”
Thus, it can be said that all torts are civil wrongs but all civil wrongs are not torts. For any wrong to
qualify as a tort, the following essentials must be present:
i. Act or Omission
To make a person liable for torts, it must be proven that the person has committed some
wrong that should have not been done or has omitted some act which should have been
dutifully performed. Also, the act or omission done must be recognised by law.
ii. Legal Injury
The plaintiff must prove that he/she has suffered a legal damage. Physical damage’s
existence is of no importance.
It includes two situations:
 Injuria sine damno- Legal injury without physical damage. Law of torts allows remedy for
this.
 Damno sine injuria-Physical damage without legal injury.Law of torts does not allow
remedy for these situations.
Introduction

Strict Liability can be defined as a liability under which the defendant can be made liable even if the
defendant did not intentionally or negligently cause the harm or was careful. This was established in
the case: Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) by the House of Lords. It is also referred to as ‘No Fault’
liability though some defences are available. The branch of No Fault Liability where no defences
are availabe is called Absolute liability which was first held in T.C.Mehta v. Union of India.
The Rule of Strict Liability has been borrowed by India from England, however, not as it is. Its
scope in some cases is limited and in others, extended. For eg. Liability without fault in case of
motor vehicles has been recognised by the supreme court to a limited extent. It must also be noticed
that conditions in India are different and thus the rule of strict liability cannot be applied as it was
earlier in England. Eg. In Madras Railway Co. v. Zamindar, storage of water for farmers is
necessary; therefore, the privy council too held that due to peculiar Indian conditions, Strict liability
may not be applicable. To prove someone liable for the said tort, three essentials namely:
a)dangerous thing; b)escape of the said dangerous thing; and c) non-natural use of land/property.
The aforementioned two were laid by Blackburn and and the third was added by the House of
Lords.

Historical Aspect

The Rule of Strict Liability originated in the Rylands v. Fletcher case of 1868 and was propounded
by the House of Lords. In this case, the defendant i.e. Rylands got a water reservoir built over his
land for providing water to his mill by some contractors. Below the site of the reservoir were old
shafts which the contractors failed to notice and did not block. When water was filled in the
resevoir, it burst out through the shafts and into the plaintiff’s coal mines on the adjoining land,
thereby, flooding them. The basis of liablity in this case was proposed by Blackburn J. as:

We think that the true rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his
land and collects and keeps thereanything 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. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was
owing to the defendant's fault; or, perhaps, that the escape was the consequence of vis major,
or the act of God; but as nothing of this sort exists in India it is unnecessary to inquire what
excuse would be sufficient.
Therefore, if a person brings on his land and keeps any dangerous thing which can do harm on
escape, he shall be liable for the said harm even though no negligence on his part exists. The House
of Lords added one more essential ingredient to this tort: the ‘Non-Natural Use of Land’.

Critics say that the existence and extension of the rule of Strict liability took place due to some
prevalent factors in the 19th century:
 Advent of manufacturing industry led to widespread abuses in manufacturing and sale of
products, due to which regulatory statutes became necessary.
 Moral ideas were given more importance and this rule allowed some remedy without any
proper legal evidences.
 Protection of minors was also a big concern which was easy to regulate through this kind of
rule.
 Ambiguity in deciding the liability when no one is negligent but the harm is done.
Other factors existed too, but these were the leading ones which led to the popular rule of Strict
Liability. It must be noted here that in India, the rule of Strict Liability is into less application as it
also grants window to defence. Thus, the Rule of Absolute Liability was introduced in India which
imposes total liability on the defendant.

Essentials and Applicability

There are three essentials which are must for the Rule of Strict Liability to be applicable. These are
namely a) a thing that caused mischief, b) escape of the said thing, and c) must have been a non-
natural use of land.
I. Dangerous Thing
Anything that has the capacity to cause harm/mischief on escape is termed as a dangerous
thing. The extension of Rule of Strict Liability resulted in consideration of electricity,
vibrations, gas, sewage, flag poles, explosions, noxius fumes, rusty wires, and yew trees as
dangerous things.
In Powell v. Fall(1808), the sparks from a road-roller cause a heap of grass to burn. Here,
the defendant was held liable because at that time use of engines was not natural and the
sparks were harmful.
If a person sustains injury in the due course of his employment in a factory manufacturing
explosives, he cannot claim damages from the management under this rule. The reason
 being no escape of the dangerous thing out of the premises and the usage of land is also
normal. Dangerous thing cannot be a sole ground.

II. Escape
The thing causing damage must escape to the area outside the occupation and control of the
defendant.
In Firth v. Bowing Iron Co., the rotten spokes of iron fell from the defendant’s fencing due
to excessive rustting. They were eaten by the plaintiff’s cattle which resulted in the death of
the animal. The defendant was held liable for the escape of a dangerous thing which was
being non-naturally used(not changed on time).
In O’Gorman v. O’Gorman, the defendant kept bee-hives in his farm which generally flew
into the plaintiff’s land. On a specific day, the defendant used smoke to get the bees away in
order to take out their honey. The bees went to the plaintiff’s land where the plaintiff was
sitting on a horse. Because of this nuisance the horse grows restless and starts running
wildly causing injuries to the plaintiff(the rider). Thus, the defendant is again held liable.
In Ramnath v. Kalnath, the defendant directs the water towards the plaintiff’s land to save
his own land through an embankment. The High Court of Nagpur held that the act done by
the defendant is not justified as no one can be permitted to divert the natural-flow of water
to protect his alnd in such a way that damage is caused to another’s.

III. Non-Natural Use of Land

The use of the land “must be special use bringing with it increased danger to others, and
must not merely by the ordinary use of land or such a use as in proper for the general benefit
of community.” This means that the land should not be used for purposes which are not
common and aren’t generally beneficial to the community.
In T.C.Balkrishnan Menon v. T.C. Subramanian, it was held that keeping explosives in an
open ground even on a day of festival is a non-natural use of land. This, because in India,
under the Indian Explosives Act, a licences required from the prescribed authorities for
making and storing such harmful substances.

Applicability
The principle of Strict Liability is generally applicable in the following cases:
i. non-natural use of land;
ii. dangerous operations such as blasting, mining etc;
 iii. liability arising out of keeping or taming dangerous animals;
iv. liability for dangerous structures such as buildings, ships, rail etc;
v. liability for dangerous chattels such as explosives, crackers, petrol, etc;
vi. liability for products which may turn harmful or are defected and result in damage.

Difference between Strict Liability and Negligence

Negligence refers to the failure to do an act or an omission with the level of care that someone of
ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. Under Strict liability
though, the negligent or non-negligent i.e. both acts are punished if they qualify the three
essentials.
Major lines of difference between the two are:
i. Negligence amounts to carelessness or a breach of duty whereas in strict liability, it is
immaterial to decide the duty of care.
ii. Foresight does not play much role in Negligence as it is more of an ignorance while in the
principle of strict liability, extra care is required.

Transformation of Strict Liability into Absolute Libility

(Scenario in India)

The Rule of Strict liability was laid down in the 19th century and according to the needs of the
english society. Today’s society is completely different as compared to the the times when the rule
was propounded. Tha advent of technology, change in lifestyle, industrialization and other factors
require a change in the laws as well. Therefore, in India, the Supreme Court, in M.C. Mehta v.
Union of India, expressed concern about the weakening effect of the rule of strict liability. It
pressed for modifications in the rule to make it more effective and relevant to the needs of time.
Modifications
The following modifications in the rule upheld in Rylands v. Fletcher led to the Doctrine of
Absolute liability:
i. If an industry/enterprise, involved in any inherently dangerous activity, causes harm/damage
to someone as a result of those operations, it will have no access to any defence or exception
and will be absolutely liable to pay compensation to the aggrieved parties.
 ii. The effect of the above modification will be that the enterprises authorised to undertake
dangerous operations shall be aware that any damage/mishap will be their total
responsibility. Therefore, in this way, the industry will keep proper safety equipment and
take all safety measures as a protection against all forseeable dangers.
iii. This modification, further says that ‘escape’ must not be an essential as the times have
changed and keeping it as an important ingredient unnecessarily restricts the scope of
applicability of the rule.
iv. The modification also proposes the nature of the damages payable to be exemplary and not
compensatory as was in the strict liability principle. This was held in Indian Council for
Enviro-legal Action v. Union of India.

Differences between Strict and Absolute Liabilty:

i. Under Strict Liability, the nature and quantum of damages payable are compensatory and
under Absolute liablity, the nature and quantum of damages payable to plaintiffs are
exemplary.
ii. Under the rule of strict liability, the defendant has defences available to him while in the
rule of absolute liability, no defences are available to the plaintiff.

Cases in which Absolute Liability was upheld:

 M.C. Mehta v. Union Of India
This case dealt with the leakage of oleum gas on 4th and 6th of December, 1985 from the
units of Shriram Foods and Fertilisers Industries, Delhi. Due to this, one person(an
advocate) died and others were affected by the same. This was the second case of a gas
leakage in India after the large scale leakage from the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, an
year prior. It was observed that if the defendant is not held liable due to safeguard provided
by defences available under Strict liability, then, no one will be able to provide the damages.
For example, when the escape of the harmful substance takes place due to a sabotage then,
who will be liable for the mass damage done? Thus, Absolute liability fits in to solve these
ambiguous cases.
 Union Carbide Corporation v. Union Of India(Bhopal Gas Tragedy)
In this case, in 1984, a mass leakage of the poisonous gas took place in bhopal. This case
was at first filed in US as Union Carbide Company in Bhopal was a branch of the Union
Carbide Company, America but was dismissed on the grounds of no jurisdiction. The
 mishap was on such a large extent that its effects are seen till date in the form of deformities
in children, impact on flora and fauna and etc. Thus, the Government of India made the
Bhopal Gas Disaster(Processing of claims)Act and sued the company on behalf of the
victims. The Govt of India filed a case against the UCC in the Bhopal District Court and the
Rule of Absolute Liability was used to hold them liable.

Exceptions to Strict Liability

1) Damage caused due to natural use of Land

If the defendant is successfully able to prove that the use of the land was natural, the, the
case will be exempted from the provisions of Strict Liability and will be tried under the
general principle of negligence. The use will be called natural also, if the premises has been
used for the public benefit. Eg: a)In Richards v. Lothian, overflow of water from a basin
whose run away had been blocked was held as a natural use and thus, did not come under
the Strict Liability Rule. b) In Giles v. Walker, the defendant does not knowingly stop the
growth of wild vegetation so, that he can cause annoyance to his neighbour. The court,
though refuses to interfere as the growth of vegetation is not a non-natural use of land.

2) Consent of the plaintiff

If the claimant/plaintiff has expressly/impliedly consented to the presence of a source of

danger and there has been no negligence on the part of the defendant, then, the defendant is
not liable. Eg: In Peters v. Prince of Wales Theatre Ltd. Burmingham, the plaintiff rented a
shop on the defendant’s premises knowing fully well that a water tank was installed in the
building in case of fire. One day, the container burst due to frost and the water seeped into
the shop, damaging the goods. The defendant wasn’t held liable as the plaintiff was well
aware of the existence of the water tank and could forsee the harms.

3) Plaintiff’s Own Default

If the damage is caused by the acts of the claimant/plaintiff himself, then, he shall have no
remedy for the damage. Eg: In Noakes v. Ponting, the plaintiff’s horse reached over the
defendant’s boundary and nibbled at poisonous leaves and resultantly, died. The plaintiff
was given no remedy because the damage was due to his own horse’s intrusion and there
had been no escape of the vegetation.

4) Act of the Stranger

This is the situation where the damage is caused by a third party or a stranger over whom the
defendant had no control. Here, the defendant is not liable. Eg: a)In Lothian v. Richards,
some strangers blocked the drainage pipe of a wash basin and left the tap open. Here, the
defendant is not liable for they weren’t aware and no control over the act.
It must be noted, however, that if the act of the stranger can be forseen by the defendant and
the damage can be avoided, it becomes the responsibility of the defendant to take due care.
Eg: In Perry v. Kendricks Transport Ltd., the defendant parked his car in the parking lot and
turned off the petrol but later the plaintiff, a school boy returning home sees two boys
standing near the car, who on spotting him run away. As the plaintiff nears, the petrol tank
explodes thus, hurting him. The court held that the defendant could not control this situation
and thus, was not liable.

5) Act of God(Vis Major)

The rule of Strict Liability cannot be applied for the acts which are beyond human
contemplation and cannot be controlled by human beings. Eg: a) In Nichols v. Marsland,
The defendant had bulit some artificial lakes by damming a natural stream. An extra-
ordinary rainfall causes them to flood and the artificial embankments are broken due to
which the water rushes out taking four bridges of the plaintiff with it. The court does not
hold the defendant liable on the ground of defence of Act of God.
Though, in Greenock Corporation v. Caledonian Rly., the corp. Built a concrete paddling
pool for children in the bed of the stream as a result of which the flow of the stream
changed. Owing to torrential rains, the pool flooded and spread over public streets and
caused damag to plaintiff’s property. The House of Lords rejected the plea of Act of God as
the pool built mid-stream had changed the natural course of the stream and not some
irresistible act.

6) Common Benefit of the Plaintiff and the Defendant

If the act or escape which was to benefit both the plaintiff and the defendant, causes a
damage then, the defendant will not be held liable. Eg: a) In Box v. Jubb, the defendant’s
reservoir was overflowed. Thogh, it was partly because of the acts of the neigbouring
owners and partly, defendant’s act. The defendant wasn’t held liable as the water reservoirs
were installed for the common benefit of the neighbourhood. b) In Kiddle v. City Business
Properties Ltd., the defendant had given one of the shops in his buildings on lease to the
plaintiff. In the rainy season, the water due to dumped stubble did not go down the drain but
enterd the plaintiff’s shop. It was held that the plaintiff and the defendant were occupiers of
 the same buildings and that the drainage was for the benefit of both. Hence, the defendant
wasn’t held liable.

7) Statutory Authority

The Rule of Strict Liability does not apply in the case of acts or escape caused during the
exercise of statutory authority. Eg: In Smeton v. Ilford Corporation, the Corporation was
accused of not maintaing proper sewers. The clogged sewage in the plaintiff’s premises was
due to the neighbour throwing sweepage in the sewage.The Court in accordance with the
Public Health Act, 1936 of the country held that the Corp could not be held liable but only
when it committed any nuisance.

Conclusion
It can therefore, be concluded that in India, Strict Liability does not play much role whereas its
modification- Absolute Liability does. Strict Liability principles were established as per the English
Law and there requirements, which is why it is important for India to remember that we are a
diversity, have a bigger population, more cases and thus, more chances of casualties. Thus, India
has made a point by using Absolute Liability and curbing the loopholes in the Principle of Strict
Liability.
Bibliography
 Shavell, Steven. “Strict Liability versus Negligence.” The Journal of Legal
Studies, vol. 9, no. 1, 1980, pp. 1–25. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/724036.
 Walker, Gary T. "The Expanding Applicability of Strict Liability Principles:
How Is a Product Defined." Tort & Insurance Law Journal, vol. 22, no. 1,
1986-1987, p. 1-15. HeinOnline,
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/ttip22&i=13.
 Williams, David W. “Non-Natural Use of Land.” The Cambridge Law Journal,
vol. 32, no. 2, 1973, pp. 310–322. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4505692.
 Gest, John Marshall. "Natural Use of Land." Am. L. Reg. & Rev. 42 (1894): 1.
 Singer, Richard G. Strict Liability
URL: https://law.jrank.org/pages/2178/Strict-Liability.html
 Shramanadwibedi. A full depth understanding of Strict and Absolute Liability
with reference to case laws.
URL: http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/2155/Strict-and-Absolute-
Liability.html