A PROJECT

ON

STRICT AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

[Submitted as a partial fulfilment of the requirements for B.A.L.L.B. (Hons.) 5 Year

Integrated Course]

Session: - 2019-20

Submitted On:-

25/09/2019

Submitted By: - Submitted To: -

BHAVISHYAT KUMAWAT DEEKSHA SHARMA

ROLL NO:- 10 ASSISTANT

PROFESSOR UFYLC
SEMESTER:- V, A

University Five Year Law College, University of Rajasthan,

Jaipur

1
 CERTIFICATE

DEEKSHA SHARMA DATE: 25/09/2019

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
Faculty
University Five Year Law College
University of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

This is to certify that Mr BHAVISHYAT KUMAWAT student of semester V, sec. A has carried
out project titled Strict And Absolute Liability under my supervision. It is an investigation
report of a minor research project. The student has completed research work in stipulated
time and according to the norms prescribed for the purpose.

Supervisor

2
 DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY

I, BHAVISHYAT KUMAWAT , hereby declare that this project titled “Strict And
Absolute Liability” is based on the original research work carried out by me under the
guidance and supervision of “DEEKSHA SHARMA”.

The interpretations put forth are based on my reading and understanding of the original texts.
The books, articles, websites etc. which have been relied upon by me have been duly
acknowledged at the respective places in text.

For the present project which I am submitting to the university, no degree or diploma has
been conferred on me before, either in this or any other university.

SIGNATURE
DATE:- 25/09/2019

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I have written this project “Strict And Absolute Liability” under the supervision of
DEEKSHA SHARMA Her valuable suggestions herein have not only helped me immensely
in making this project but also in developing an analytical approach to this work.

I would like to express my sense of gratitude for Director, Dr.SanjulaThanvi and Deputy
Directors Mr. Manoj Meena& Mr. Abhishek Tiwari for constant encouragement at every
step.

I am extremely grateful to the library staff and the librarian of the college for the support and

Cooperation extended by them from time to time.

BHAVISHYAT KUMAWAT

4
 TABLE OF CONTENT

CERTIFICATE 2

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 4

RESEARCH ETHODOLOGY 6

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION 7

CHAPTER 2 8

STRICT LIABILITY

CHAPTER 3 11

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

CHAPTER 4 13
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STRICT AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

CONCLUSION 14

BIBLIOGRAPHY 15

5
 RESEARCH METHODOLGY

The researcher has used doctrinal method for preparing this project and relies only upon the
secondary source of data to prepare this project

Aim of study:
To study about the theory and study of law according to Strict And Absolute Liability.

6
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 STRICT LIABILITY

The rule of strict liability was laid down in the year 1868. According to this rule, in this
case, it was laid down that any person keeping any hazardous substance on his premises
would be held liable if that substance escapes from there and harms others. At that point in
time, it would be irrelevant, that whether the defendant has taken due care whether he was
negligent or not. Under this principle, the person would be held liable even if he had taken
proper care, provided there are certain exceptions under which defendant can run off his
liability. These rules have its derivatives from the case laws. The rule of Strict Liability was
laid down in the case of Rylands vs. Fletcher and therefore this rule is also termed as ‘Rule
in Rylands vs. Fletcher’ but due to some exceptions as provided under this rule, the rule of
Absolute liability was laid down. It was laid down in the case of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of
India where the Supreme Court held that there can be no defence available for the act done;
the defendant would be liable for the act.

1.2 ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

The Supreme Court applied a stricter version of the rule of strict liability in the case of MC
Mehta v. Union of India (1987). In this case, harmful Oleum gas had escaped from a factory
owned by Shriram Foods & Fertilizer Industries. The gas had caused a lot of damage to
people and industries nearby.The Supreme Court held that, despite being so stringent, the
strict liability rule was inadequate in modern times. This is because scientific advancements
have made modern industries even more dangerous and hazardous. Hence, the court laid
down the absolute liability rule in this case.According to the absolute liability rule, no
exceptions of strict liability shall apply in certain cases. Therefore, the people who cause
damage will have unlimited liability to compensate victims adequately. Courts in India have
applied this rule in many cases to create deterrence.

7
 CHAPTER 2
STRICT LIABILITY
The rule of strict liability was laid down in the year 1868. According to this rule, in this case, it
was laid down that any person keeping any hazardous substance on his premises would be held
liable if that substance escapes from there and harms others. At that point in time, it would be
irrelevant, that whether the defendant has taken due care whether he was negligent or not. Under
this principle, the person would be held liable even if he had taken proper care, provided there
are certain exceptions under which defendant can run off his liability. Moving towards the facts
of this case, the defendant got a reservoir constructed on his land for the purpose of supplying
water to the mill. The work was done by an independent contractor. There was an old disused
shaft under the site which the contractor failed to notice and hence did not block it. As the water
was filled into the reservoir there was a blast through the shaft and the resultant was that the
water flooded from defendant’s property to plaintiff’s coal mines on adjoining land. It was held
that as the reservoir was built at defendants own risk he was, made liable for damage so
happened to the plaintiff. While giving judgement it was held that if any person brings any
hazardous substance on his land, and if that substance is likely to cause some damage which is
dangerous if escape then such person would be held liable, even if he had taken proper care and
hadn’t been negligent in keeping the substance at his place. Based on this judicial decision, the
concept of strict liability came in vogue. There are certain essential conditions to be fulfilled to
categorize a liability under strict liability.

The Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher1 :

The rule in this case rests on the idea of foreseeability- of damage; the person who is the source
of damage is penalized for failing to avert the reasonably foreseeable damage.

Facts: Rylands and Fletcher were neighbours. Fletcher owned a mill, for the energy purposes of
which he hired independent contractors and engineers to construct a water reservoir on his land.
It so happened that there were old unused shafts under the site of the reservoir which the
engineers failed to notice and block. Due to the negligence of the contractors, when water filled
Fletcher’s reservoir, the water entered Rylands’ coal mine and caused huge loss, for that is where
the shafts led. Subsequently, Ryland filed a suit against Fletcher. The defendant claimed that it
was the fault of the contractors’, and the cause of damage was unknown to him.

1
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/rylands-v-fletcher.php

8
Issues: The issue was very concise – Can the defendant be held liable, even if it was the act of
someone else due to which an entity on his land escaped? It was notable because there was no
negligence or intention on part of the defendant.

Judgment: The House of Lords rejected the plea of the defendant and held him liable for all the
damages to Rylands’ mine. According to the rule set by this case, if a person brings on his land
and keeps there any dangerous thing, a thing which is likely to do mischief if it escapes, he will
be prima facie answerable to the damage caused by its escape even though he had not been
negligent in keeping it there. Despite there being no fault or negligence on the part of the
defendant, he was held liable because he kept some dangerous thing on his land and the said
dangerous thing has escaped from his land and caused damage.

Essentials of Strict Liability

Certain qualifications were given to decide whether a liability is strict liability or not. Only after
these essential qualifications are satisfied, can a liability can be termed as strict liability. These
essentials, which are elucidated upon further on, are:
 Some dangerous thing must have been brought by a person on his land.
 The thing thus brought or kept by a person on his land must escape.
 It must be non-natural use of land.

 Dangerous Thing
This simply means that the defendant will be liable when the thing that escaped from his
premises was a dangerous thing. The word ‘dangerous’ here implies that it is likely to do any sort
of mischief if it escapes from the land. The collected water in Fletcher’s reservoir was the
dangerous thing in the above mentioned case.

 Escape
It is also essential that the thing causing harm must escape from the premises of the defendant,
and it should not be within the reach of the defendant once it escapes.
 Non-Natural Use Of Land
For the use to be non-natural, it must be some special use that brings with it increased danger to
others. It must not be the ordinary use of land or use as is proper for the general benefit of
community.

9
  The Exceptions

There are certain exceptions to this rule, which are:

 Default of the Claimant

If the damage is caused solely by the act or default of the claimant himself, there is no remedy
for him.

 Consent of the claimant

Where the claimant has expressly or implicitly consented to the presence of the source of danger
and there has been no negligence on the part of the defendant, the defendant is not liable.

 Act of God
An event which directly and exclusively results from natural causes that could not have been
prevented by the exercise of foresight or by the exercise of caution may be called an Act of God.
Say, if the escape was unforeseen and without any human intervention, caused by some super
natural force, then the defendant will not be liable.
 Statutory Authority
An act done under the authority of a statute exempts the defendant from tortious liability.
However, the defence cannot be pleaded if the if there is any kind of negligence on the part of
the defendant.
 Act of Third Party
The rule of strict liability doesn’t apply when the damages are caused due to the act of a stranger,
i.e. a person who is not the servant nor is under the control of the defendant. However, due care
must be taken by the defendant to avoid the damages if the act of the stranger can be foreseen by
the defendant.

10
 CHAPTER 3
ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

The rule of absolute liability was evolved in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India2, and
took strict liability one step further by stating that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous
or inherently dangerous activity is absolutely liable for the harm resulting from the operation of
such activity, and to compensate to all those who are affected by the accident.

Facts: On the 4th and the 6th of December, 1985 in Delhi, there was severe leakage of oleum gas
which this took place in one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries, which
belonged to the Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. Due to this, an advocate practicing in the Tis Hazari Court
had died and many others were affected by the same. A writ petition by way of public interest
litigation (PIL) was brought to the court.

Issue:. It was contested that if all the tragedies arising from the conduct of the large factories
follow the rule of strict liability, they will fall under the exceptions and get away scot free for the
damage they have caused in the conduct of their activity.

Judgment: The Court had noted that this was the second case of large-scale leakage of a deadly
gas in India within the period of a year in India, as a year earlier more than 3000 people had died
due to the leakage of gas from the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal and lakhs of others were
subjected to various other kinds of diseases. If the rule of strict liability laid down in Rylands v.
Fletcher was applied to such situations, then those who had established “hazardous and
inherently dangerous” industries in and around thickly populated areas could escape the liability
for the havoc caused thereby by pleading some exception. The Supreme Court therefore evolved
a new rule – the rule of “Absolute Liability”, as coined by the then Chief Justice of India PN
Bhagwati.

It expressly declared that the new rule was not subject to any of the exceptions under the rule in
Rylands v. Fletcher. The Court gave two reasons justifying the rule:
The enterprise carrying on such hazardous and inherently dangerous activity for private profit
has a social obligation to compensate those suffering therefrom, and it should absorb such loss as
overhead; and
The enterprise alone has the resource to discover and guard against such hazards and dangers.

2
AIR 1987 SC 1086

11
The Court explained its position in the following words: “If the enterprise is permitted to carry
on any hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit, the law must presume that such
permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident arising on account
of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate item of its overheads. This
principle is also sustainable on the ground that the enterprise also has the resource to discover
and guard against hazards or dangers and to provide warning against potential hazard.”

The Court also laid down that the measure of compensation payable, that it should be correlated
to the capacity of the enterprise, so that it can have the deterrent effect and the larger and more
prosperous enterprises providing a greater amount of compensation for the damages they have
caused.

12
 CHAPTER 4
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STRICT AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

The difference between Strict and Absolute liability was clearly mentioned by the Supreme
Court in M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, where the court summarised it broadly as follows:

In Absolute Liability only those enterprises shall be held liable which are involved in hazardous
or inherently dangerous activities.
The escape of a dangerous thing from one’s own land is not necessary. Absolute liability is
applicable to those injured within the premise and outside the premise.
The rule of Absolute liability does not have any exceptions, unlike the rule of Strict Liability.
The rule elucidated upon in Ryland v. Fletcher applies only to the non-natural use of land, but
absolute liability applies even to the natural use of land. If a person uses a dangerous substance
and if such substance escapes, he shall be held liable even though he have taken proper care.
The extent of damages depends on the magnitude and financial capability of the institute. The
Supreme Court also stated that the enterprise must be held to be under an “obligation to ensure
that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activities in which it is engaged must be conducted
with the highest standards of safety and security and if any harm results on account of such
negligent activity, the enterprise/institute must be held absolutely liable to compensate. for any
damage caused and no opportunity is to given to answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken
all reasonable care and that the harm caused without any negligence on his part”.

13
 CONCLUSION

The rule of strict liability and absolute liability can be seen as exceptions. A person is made
liable only when he is at fault. But the principle governing these two rules is that a person can be
made liable even without his fault. This is known as the principle of “no fault liability.” Under
these rules, the liable person may not have done the act, but he’ll still be responsible for the
damage caused due to the acts. In the case of strict liability, there are some exceptions where the
defendant wouldn’t be made liable. But in the case of absolute liability, no exceptions are
provided to the defendant. The defendant will be made liable under the strict liability rule no
matter what.

14
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Mahajan,V.D., Jurisprudence and Legal Theory, Eastern Book, 5 th Edition, 2010

 DR, Avtar Singh , Introduction to jurisprudence, lexis nexis, 3 rd Edition 2011
 https://racolblegal.com/the-distinction-between-absolute-liability-and-strict-liability/

15