PROJECT WORK

OF

LAW OF TORTS

TOPIC: STRICT LIABILITY

SUBMITTED TO: Prof. Abhijit Anand

SUBMITTED BY: Syed Renoba Nisar

GLOCAL LAW SCHOOL

CONTENTS

 Introduction of strict liability

 Evolution of strict liability in India through Ryland’s v. Fletcher case

 Difference between strict liability in India with respect to principle of it

evolved in
Ryland’s v. Fletcher

 Essentials of strict liability

 Exceptions to the rule of strict liability

 Defences of strict liability

Strict liability is the liability in which the wrongdoer is liable to the acts for which he is not
responsible. The doctrine of strict liability has formed its foundation in England’s case Ryland’s
vs. Fletcher1 in which: The defendant, owned a mill, where he got a reservoir constructed
through independent contractors, over his land for providing water to his mill. The reservoir was
constructed over the old coal mines, and the mill owner had no reason to suspect that these old
diggings led to an operating colliery. The water in reservoir ran down the old shafts and flooded
colliery. The defendant did not know of the shafts and had not been negligent although the
independent contractors had been. Even though the defendant had not been negligent, he was
held liable. Blackburn, j2. held the mill owner to be liable, on the principle that “The person
who for his purposes brings on his land 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 damages which is the natural consequences of its escape”. On appeal this
principle of liability without fault was affirmed by the House of Lords but restricted to non-
natural users vide. The doctrine also operates as a loss-distribution mechanism: The person
indulging in such hazardous activities (usually a corporation) being in best position to spread the
loss through insurance and higher prices of its products.

The doctrine of strict liability evolved in India the case of MC Mehta’s where the Supreme Court
had imposed the “strict liability” principle on erring industries. It ruled that “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 enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident
arising on account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate item of
its overheads. Such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for private profit can be tolerated
only on condition that the enterprise engaged in such hazardous or inherently activity
indemnifies all those who suffer on account of carrying on of such hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity regardless of whether it is carried on carefully or not. 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 emphasized
that there are no exceptions to the rule of strict liability. Moreover, the amount of compensation
would depend upon the capacity of enterprise and not the earning capacity of the individual

1
(1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330 (Dr. RK Bangia, Law of torts, 25 th ed. 2017, Allahabad Law agency, page 325)
2
Blackburn, J. formulated this rule (Dr. RK Bangia, Law of torts, 25 th ed. 2017, Allahabad Law agency, page 325)
victims. In the Union of India vs. Prabhakaran, where the Supreme Court had extended its
cover to public utilities like the railways, electricity distribution companies, public corporations
and local bodies “which may be social utility undertakings not working for private profit”. In this
case a woman fell on railway track and was fatally run over. Her husband demanded
compensation. The railways argued that she was negligent as she tried to board a moving train.
The Supreme Court rejected this contention and said that her “contributory negligence” should
not be considered in such untoward incidents – the railway has “strict liability”.

Strict liability doctrine can be defined as the acts or omissions which are held liable without the
mens rea (mental intent). It is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil
context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and
loss caused by his or her acts and omissions regardless of culpability including the fault in
criminal law. In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without finding of
fault (such as negligence or tortuous intent). The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred
and the defendant was responsible.

In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea (Latin for “guilty mind”) does not
have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (Latin for “guilty
act”) although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements
of the offence. The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though
they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal.
The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal
negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea. These laws are applied either in regulatory
offences enforcing social behavior where minimal stigma attaches to a person upon conviction,
or where society is concerned with the prevention of harm and wishes to maximize the deterrent
value of the offence.
EVOLUTION OF THE STRICT LIABILITY IN INDIA THROUGH
RYLAND’S V. FLETCHER:

The rule in Ryland’s v. Fletcher was evolved in the year 1866, the liability under the rule is
strict and it is no defence that the thing escaped without that person’s willful act, default or
neglect or even that he had no knowledge of its existence .The rule in Ryland’s v. Fletcher laid
down a principle of liability that if a person who brings on to his land and collects and keeps
there anything likely to do harm and such thing escapes and does damage to another, he is liable
to compensate for the damage caused. This rule applies only to non-natural user of the land and it
does not apply to things naturally on the land or where the escapes is due to an act of God and an
act of stranger or default of person injured or where the thing which escapes is present by the
consent of the person injured or in certain cases where there is statutory authority.

The Supreme Court in India said that law has to grow in order to satisfy the needs of the fast
changing society and keep abreast with the economic developments taking place in the country.
Law cannot afford to remain static. The court cannot allow judicial thinking to be constricted by
reference to law as it prevails in England or any other foreign country. It is also said that, it has
to build up its own jurisprudence, evolve new principles and lay down new norms which would
adequately deal with the new problems which arise in a highly industrialized economy. Also the
court should not hesitate to evolve such principles of liability merely because it has been so done
in England. In the past years the court has expanded the horizon of the Article 12 and the
purpose of it has not been to destroy the raison deter of creating corporations but to advance the
human rights jurisprudence.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STRICT LIABILITY IN INDIA WITH
RESPECT TO THE PRINCIPLE OF IT EVOLVED IN THE RYLANDS V.
FLETCHER

 The rule in Ryland’s v. Fletcher requires non-natural use of land by the defendant and
escape from his land of the thing, which causes damage.

 But the rule in MC Mehta v. Union of India is not dependant upon any such conditions.
The necessary requirements for applicability of the new rule are that the defendant is
engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and that harm results to anyone on
account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous
activity.
 The rule in Ryland’s v. Fletcher will not cover cases of harm to persons within the
premises for the rule requires escape of thing which causes harm from premises. The new
rule makes no distinction between the persons within the premises where the enterprise is
carried on and person outside the premises for escape of thing causing harm from the
premises is not a necessary condition for the applicability of the rule.
 Damages awardable where the rule in Ryland’s v. Fletcher applies will be ordinary or
compensatory where as in MC Mehta’s case the court can allow exemplary damages and
the larger and more prosperous the enterprise, the greater must be the compensation
payable by it.
ESSENTIALS OF STRICT LIABILITY RULE:

(1) Some dangerous thing must have been brought by a person on his land.
(2) The thing thus brought or kept by person on his land must escape.
(3) It must be non-natural use of land.

1. Dangerous Thing
According to this rule, the liability for the escape of a thing from one’s land arises
provided the thing collected was dangerous thing, i.e., a thing likely to do mischief if it
escapes. In Ryland’s v. Fletcher, the thing so collected was large body of water. The rule has
also been applied to gas, electricity, vibrations, yew trees, sewage, flag-pole, explosives,
noxious fumes, and rusty wires.

1. Escape
For the rule in Ryland’s v. Fletcher to apply, it is also essential that the thing causing the
damage must escape to the area outside the occupation and control of the defendant.

For instance, if there is projection of branches of a poisonous tree n the neighbor’s land, this
amounts to an escape and if the cattle lawfully there on neighbor’s land are poisoned by
eating the leaves of the same, the defendant will be liable under the rule. But if the plaintiff’s
horse intrudes over the boundary and dies by nibbling the leaves of poisonous tree there, the
defendant cannot be liable because there is no escape of vegetation in this case.
In Read v. Lyons & Co3, there is was no escape and therefore there was no liability under the
rule. In that case the plaintiff, Read was an employee in defendant’s ammunition factory.
While she was performing her duties inside the defendant’s premises, a shell, which was
being manufactured there, exploded whereby she was injured. There was no evidence of
negligence on part of defendant’s. Even though the shell which had exploded was dangerous
thing, it was held that the defendants were no liable because there was no escape of the thing
outside of defendant’s premises and therefore the rule in Ryland’s v. Fletcher did not apply to
this case
3
(19470 A.C.156; (1946) 2 All E.R. 471 (Dr. RK Bangia, Law of torts, 25 th ed. 2017, Allahabad Law agency, page
327)
2. Non-Natural Use Of Land
For the use to be non-natural it must be some special use bringing with it increased danger
to others, and must not merely by the ordinary use of land or such a use as is proper for the
general benefit of community. In Ryland’s v. Fletcher case water collected in the reservoir in
huge quantity was held to be non-natural use of land.
Keeping water for ordinary domestic purpose is “natural use”.
In Noble v. Harrison4, it has been held that non poisonous trees on one’s land are not non-
natural use of land. There branch of non poisonous tree growing on defendants land, which
overhung on the highway, suddenly broke and fell on the plaintiffs vehicle passing along
highway. The branch had broken off due to some latent defect. It was held that the defendant
could not be made liable under the rule of Ryland’s v. Fletcher as growing of tree is not non-
natural use of land. However, growing of a poisonous tree is non-natural use of land as it can
harm anyone and defendant will be liable under the rule.

In the case of Sochacki vs. Sas5, the defendant was a lodger in the claimant’s house. He lit an
open fire in his room and then went out. Unfortunately a spark jumped from the fire and set
the room alight. The fire spread to the rest of the house and the claimant brought an action
against the defendant based on liability arising under Ryland’s vs. Fletcher. I was held that
the defendant was not liable. Whilst the fire was likely to do mischief if it escaped, the use of
an open fire in claimant’s fireplace was not considered a non-natural use of land. This case
clearly explains the conditions when the use of land by the defendant can be described as
non-natural use and when not.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE OF STRICT LIABILITY :

4
(1926) 2 K.B. 332 (Dr. RK Bangia, Law of torts, 25 th ed. 2017, Allahabad Law agency, page 328)
5
(1947) 1 All E.R. 344 (www.lawctopus.com)
The following exceptions to the rule have been recognized by Ryland’s v. Fletcher

(1) Plaintiffs own default;

(2) Act of God;
(3) Consent of the plaintiff;
(4) Act of third party;
(5) Statutory authority.

1. Plaintiff’s Own Default

Damage caused by escape due to plaintiff’s own default was considered to be good
defence in Ryland’s v. Fletcher itself. If the plaintiff suffers damage by his own intrusion into
the defendant’s property, he cannot complain for the damage so caused.
When the damage to plaintiff’s property is caused not so much by the “escape” of things
collected by the defendant as by the unusual sensitiveness of plaintiff’s property itself, the
plaintiff cannot recover anything.
In Eastern and South African Telegraph Co. Ltd v. Capetown Tramways Co 6., the
plaintiff’s submarine cable transmissions were disturbed by escape of electric current from
defendant’s tramways. It was found that the damage was due to unusual sensitiveness of
plaintiff’s apparatus and such damage won’t occur to person carrying on ordinary business, the
defendant was not liable for escape. It was observed that “a man cannot increase the liabilities of
his neighbor by applying his own property to special uses, whether for business or pleasure.

2. Act Of God

6
(1902) A.C. 381. (Dr. RK Bangia, Law of torts, 25th ed. 2017, Allahabad Law agency, page 329)
 Act of God was also considered to be a defence to an action under the rule in Ryland’s v.
Fletcher by Blackburn, J. himself.
Act of God has been defined as:
“Circumstances which no human foresight can provide against and of which human
prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility7”
In context to the strict liability, if the escape was unforeseen and without any human
intervention, caused by some super natural force, then the defendant will not be liable for
damages. For instance, in case of Nichols v Marsland8, this defence was successfully
pleaded. In this case, the defendant built up a dam in the natural stream flowing on his land to
create artificial lakes there. Unfortunately, that land faced heavy rainfall that year. The
rainfall was extra ordinary and unforgettable. Due to rain, the embankments of the artificial
lakes gave away. The rush of the water down the stream washed away the bridges of the
plaintiff. It was held that the defendant was not liable.
An “act of God” as an exception to the rule of strict liability is held not available in cases of
death due to electrocution as a result of falling of high tension electric wire from its pole due
to lightning stroke or storm.

4. Consent of the Plaintiff:

In this exception, there is no common benefit to the defendant and the plaintiff, as in the case
of volenti non fit injuria. For example, if the plaintiff and the defendant are neighbors and
share the same water source on the land of the defendant, if any damage is caused to the
plaintiff due to that collected water, the defendant won’t be liable. On the other hand, when a
festival is organized and the display of frameworks causes damages to the crowd, the
organizers will be liable since the display will not be deemed to be conducted for the benefit
of all.
In Carstairs v Taylor,9 the plaintiff hired ground floor of a building from the defendant. The
upper floor of the building was occupied by the defendant himself. Water stored on the upper
floor leaked without nay negligence on the part of the defendant and injured the plaintiff’s
7
Tennent v. Earl of Glasgow, (1864) 2 M (H.L.) 22, 26-27 (Dr. RK Bangia, Law of torts, 25 th ed. 2017, Allahabad Law
agency, page 330)
8
(1876) 2 Ex. D. 1 (www.lawctopus.com)
9
(1871) L.R 6 Ex. 217 (Dr. RK Bangia, Law of torts, 25th ed. 2017, Allahabad Law agency, page 332)
 goods on the ground floor. As the water has been stored for the benefit of both the defendant
and the plaintiff, the defendant was held not liable.

5. Act of Third Party:

The rule of strict liability doesn’t apply when the damages is caused due to act of a stranger.
A stranger will be a person who is not the servant of the defendant nor is under the control of
the defendant. In the case Rickards v. Lothian,10 some strangers blocked the waste pipes of a
wash basin, which was otherwise in control of the defendants, and opened the tap. The
overflowing water damaged the plaintiff’s goods. The defendants were held not liable.
If, however, the act of the stranger is or can be foreseen by the defendant and the damage can
be prevented, the defendant must, by due care, prevent the damage. Failure on his part to
avoid such damages will make him liable. In Northwestern Utilities v. London Guarantee
and Accident Co,11 the appellants were a public utility company carrying gas at a high
pressure. During the construction of sewer by the city authorities, a gas pipe leaked, resulting
in fire which destroyed the hotel insured by the respondents. Since the operations of the city
authorities were conspicuous and the danger to the gas pipes could have been reasonably
foreseen and guarded against, the failure to do that was considered to be a negligence on the
part of the appellants and they were held liable.

5. Statutory Authority
An act done under the authority of the statute is a very strong defence to an action of tort.
However, the defence cannot be pleaded if there is any kind of negligence on the part of the
defendant who is under statutory authority. In the Green v. Chelsa Co,12 the defendant

10
(1913) A.C. 263(Dr. RK Bangia, Law of torts, 25 th ed. 2017, Allahabad Law agency, page 332)

11
(1936) A.C. 108 (Dr. RK Bangia, Law of torts, 25 th ed. 2017, Allahabad Law agency, page 332)
12
(1894) 70 L.T. 547 (www.lawctopus.com)
 company had a statutory duty to maintain continuous supply of water. A main belonging to
the company burst without any negligence on its part, as a consequence of which the
plaintiff’s premises were flooded with water. It was held that the company was not liable as
the company was engaged in performing a statutory duty.

DEFENCES OF STRICT LIABILITY:

1. Assumption of the Risk:

The plaintiff knew of and voluntary assumed the risks associated with an abnormally
dangerous activity or a product, such as taking a medication while knowing about the side
effects. In other words, the plaintiff consented to being harmed by the defendant. If they
engage in an ultra-hazardous activity, they may be barred from receiving any money from the
defendant.

2. Comparative Fault:

Comparative fault focuses on the plaintiff’s actions. If the plaintiff is involved in causing their
own harm, the court will reduce the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff in accordance
with percentage of harm that was self-inflicted. This would likely be the case where a plaintiff
deliberately crossed a street when they were not supposed to and were subsequently hit by a car
going 15 miles over the speed limit because the plaintiff was partly responsible for putting
themselves into the position where they were injured.

3. Misuse or Abuse of the Product:

Misuse or abuse of the product means that the plaintiff used the item in a way for which it was
not intended or reasonably foreseen. Thus, the defendant is not responsible for the plaintiff’s
injury.
 “An example of misusing the product would be if a plaintiff used a toilet bowl cleaner to add
flavoring to a soup and ends up with food poisoning as a result. The manufacturer would not be
held liable for the plaintiff’s actions because the cleaner was not intended to be consumed as a
food product and it is not foreseeable that anyone would voluntarily consume the cleaner as part
of a meal.

An example of abusing the product would be if the plaintiff uses a bowl in a microwave
multiple times even though the bowl manufacturer specifically warns the bowl should only be
used one time. The last time that the plaintiff uses the bowl, it falls apart and causes the plaintiff
third degree burns. Since the injury was caused by an abuse of the product, the plaintiff may not
recover.”13

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS REFERRED:

 Dr. R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts, 24th edition, 2017, Publisher Allahabad Law Agency
 S.P. Singh, Law of Torts, 7th edition, 2015, Publisher Universal Law Publishing

13
(www.legalmatch.com)
WEBSITES REFERRED:

 www.legalmatch.com
 www.lawctopus.com
 www.google .com