LAW ASSIGNMENT

TORT- LIABILITY
Udit Raj Singh, FYA
Roll No. A050

What Is Tort Liability?

A tort is a legal term describing a violation where one person causes damage, injury, or harm
to another person. The violation may result from intentional actions, a breach of duty as in
negligence, or due to a violation of statutes.
The party that commits the tort is called the tortfeasor. A tortfeasor incurs tort liability, meaning
that they will have to reimburse the victim for the harm that they caused them. In other words,
the tortfeasor who is found to be “liable” or responsible for a person’s injuries will likely be
required to pay damages.
Under most tort laws, the injury suffered by the plaintiff does not have to actually be
physical. A tortfeasor may be required to pay damages for other types of harm, including
emotional distress or a violation of personal rights.
liability in a tort situation can sometimes involve many different factors. For example, a
tortfeasor may become liable to several different victims if they have injured a group of people.
Or, several different tortfeasors can be held liable for the injuries of a single victim, such as
when a person is attacked by a group. It is even possible for the victim themselves to incur
liability, for example if they contributed to their own injury apart from the tortfeasor’s actions
Some other types of liabilities are:

1. Joint Liability: This is where several tortfeasors are held liable for a tort against one
party. The tortfeasors are said to be “jointly liable” for the harm. How much each
tortfeasor will be required to pay may depend on their individual degree of liability, as
well as the rules for that particular jurisdiction.

Case Study, Arneil Vs Paterson- In this case, two dogs at a concert which belonged to
different owners, attacked a flock of sheep and injured many of them. When a suit was
brought against the owners of the dogs, under Joint Liability they were held liable. But
one of them put forth a claim that he would be liable only for one-half. As it came to
be known by the House of Lords that it was impossible to know whose dog did how
much damage and that both the dogs attacked the flock as whole acting together, it
was finally held that both the owners will be liable for the whole damage.
2. Vicarious Liability: This is where a superior is held liable for the actions of their
subordinates. For example, an employer who directs their employee to commit a tort
during their work shift may be held liable for the harm caused by the employee.

Case Study, Mohamud Vs WM Morrison Supermarkets- Mohamud was the

customer who attended a petrol station at Morrisons. He asked the employee behind the
counter to print something from his USB stick. The employee refused, was abusive and
followed Mohamud to his car in the forecourt where he ordered Mohamud not to return
and physically assaulted him. The SC held that whilst the employee’s conduct was
inexcusable his job was to attend to customer’s enquiries and he was acting within the
“field of activities” given to him. His actions didn’t make only him but also his
employer Morrison Supermarkets liable to tort and hence Mr. Mohamud won the case
against Morrison Supermarkets of Vicarious Liability.

3. Liability to/for Third Party: Third party interactions can also affect tort
liability. Sometimes a person may be held liable for injuries sustained by a third
party. For example, a landlord often has a duty not only to ensure that their tenants are
free from harm on the premises, but also that third party visitors are safe as well. Or,
sometimes a third party may be liable to the main parties in a contract.

Case Study, Caparo Industries plc v Dickman- A company called Fidelity plc,
manufacturers of electrical equipment, was the target of a takeover by Caparo Industries
plc. Fidelity was not doing well. In March 1984 Fidelity had issued a profit warning,
which had halved its share price. In May 1984 Fidelity's directors made a preliminary
announcement in its annual profits for the year up to March. This confirmed the position
was bad. The share price fell again. At this point Caparo had begun buying up shares
in large numbers. In June 1984 the annual accounts, which were done with the help of
the accountant Dickman, were issued to the shareholders, which now included Caparo.
Caparo reached a shareholding of 29.9% of the company, at which point it made a
general offer for the remaining shares, as the City Code's rules on takeovers required.
But once it had control, Caparo found that Fidelity's accounts were in an even worse
state than had been revealed by the directors or the auditors. It sued Dickman for
negligence in preparing the accounts and sought to recover its losses. This was the
difference in value between the company as it had and what it would have had if the
accounts had been accurate. The court held that ``that, whilst there was no relationship
between an auditor and a potential investor sufficiently proximate to give rise to a duty
of care at common law, there was such a relationship with individual shareholders, so
that an individual shareholder who suffered loss by acting in reliance on negligently
prepared accounts, whether by selling or retaining his shares or by purchasing
additional shares, was entitled to recover in tort''.

4. Parent Liability: Parents may sometimes be held liable for the tortious actions of their
children. This also varies according to jurisdiction and the type of tort involved.

Case Study, Bebee Vs. Sales- In the case of Bebee Vs. Sales, the father supplied an
airgun to his son who was 15 years of age. Even after so much of complaints of mischief
caused by the gun, he allowed the gun to remain with the boy, who accidentally
wounded the plaintiff. For that the father was held liable of negligence.
5. Strict Liability: Strict liability means that the tortfeasor may be held liable for a
violation even if they did not intend to violate a statute. Examples of strict liability torts
include transporting hazardous materials in an off-limits zone or harbouring dangerous
wild animals.

Case Study, Ryland Vs. Fletcher- In 1860, Rylands paid contractors to build a
reservoir on his land, intending that it should supply the Anisworth mills with water.
Rylands played no active role in the construction, instead contracting out to a competent
engineer. While building it, the contractors discovered a series of old coal shafts and
passages under the land filled loosely with soil and debris, which joined up with
Thomas Fletcher's adjoining mine. Rather than blocking these shafts up, the contractors
left them. On 11 December 1860, shortly after being filled for the first time, Rylands'
reservoir burst and flooded Fletcher's mine, the Red House Colliery, causing £937
worth of damage. Fletcher pumped the water out, but on 17 April 1861 his pump burst,
and the mine again began to flood. At this point a mines inspector was brought in, and
the sunken coal shafts were discovered. Fletcher brought a claim against Rylands and
the landowner, Jehu Horrocks, on 4 November 1861. The court held that though it was
the work of the miners that damaged the mines of Fletcher but it was Ryland who
brought the miners on his land and it was his responsibility that there should be no
damage to any one as he was under strict liability because the work he was getting done
was for his own benefit and was a unnatural use of the land, which comes under strict
liability.

The rule that came from here was- A person who for his own purposes brings on his
lands and collects 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
damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.

6. Absolute Liability: If an industry or enterprise is engaged in some inherently

dangerous activity from which it is deriving commercial gain and that activity is capable
of causing catastrophic damage then the industry officials are absolutely liable to pay
compensation to the aggrieved parties. The industry cannot plead that all safety
measures were taken care of by them and that there was negligence on their part. They
will not be allowed any exceptions neither can they take up any defence like that of
‘Act of God’ or ‘Act of Stranger’. So there was no defence in case of absolute liability
unlike strict liability.

The rule of Strict Liability was subject to many exceptions therefore practically very
little ruled was left. The old rule being with many exceptions was not capable to make
any individual strictly liable for his negligence. Therefore, it was essential to make
harder rule with same purpose.

The Indian judiciary viewed the law as incompatible because this law was quite old and
was of the industrial revolution time which meant that it could not properly fit in today’s
social and economic structure. Hence there was a need of a new and more strict law,
and hence came absolute liability after the Bhopal gas tragedy:

Case Study, Bhopal Gas Tragedy- The Bhopal gas tragedy is, till date, the world’s
worst industrial disaster. It occurred in December of 1984 at Bhopal in Madhya
Pradesh. The tragedy was a result of the leak of the methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas from
the Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL) plant which manufactured pesticides. On the night
of December 2-3, 1984, there was a leak of the MIC gas which is considered to be the
most toxic chemical in industrial use. All around the city of Bhopal, people were
exposed to this gas and the immediate effects of inhaling the gas were coughing,
vomiting, severe eye irritation and a feeling of suffocation. Thousands of people died
immediately and lakhs of people sustained permanent injuries.

After took place the oleum gas leak in Delhi at Shriram Food and Fertilisers Ltd.
Though only one person died in this accident, in the verdict of this case were the
principles of absolute liability were laid down.

Difference in Strict and Absolute Liability- Strict liability and absolute liability are
not the same things and are different. As in strict liability, the defendant has a chance
to escape the liability after causing the damage and injury whereas under absolute
liability this is not the case as the defendant is held absolutely liable for his acts. This
means that even if both the rules come up for giving punishments to the wrongdoer who
has caused injury and by dealing with hazardous substance without proper care and
caution but they would differ in cases of providing relaxation.