STRICT LIABILITY

Prof. (Dr.) C J Rawandale

Professor, Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
 • To make one liable under law of torts one
must prove violation of legal right of the
plaintiff due to an act or omission of the
defendant coupled with his/her:
• fault,
INTRODUCTION
• negligence or
• wrongful intent.
General Principle of Liability

• If there is no fault, or negligence or

wrongful intent on the part of the
defendant, then he will escape liability.
 • Doctrine of Strict Liability is an exception
to this general rule.

• This doctrine makes some persons

STRICT LIABILITY responsible for damages, their actions or
products cause, regardless of any “fault”
on their part.
Exception To The General Rule of
Liability
• Strict liability often applies when people
engage in inherently dangerous activities
or deal with/in hazardous substances.
 • Rylands and Fletcher were neighbours.
Fletcher was running a coal mine on lease.
Rylands desired to construct a water
reservoir on his land for storing water and
supplying it to the Ainsworth Mill. R gave this
job to an independent contractor.

• While working on the water reservoir, the

RYLANDS V FLETCHER workmen belonging to the independent
contractor came across some old disused
shafts. They did not properly pack those
(1868) LR 3 HL 330
ones.

• After the completion of the work, when

water was filled in the reservoir, those
improperly packed old disused shafts
succumbed to the pressure and water
percolated through to the coal mine and
Fletcher could not carry any work, thus
suffered losses. He went to the court for
redressal.
 • A special case was stated by an arbitrator
for the Court of Exchequer.

• The arbitrator found that the contractors,

but not the defendants, had been negligent.
On that basis, the question for the Court of
Exchequer was whether the plaintiff was
entitled to recover damages against the
defendants.
FIRST STAGE
• The Court of the Exchequer, by a majority
(Pollock CB and Martin B), decided in favour
of the defendants.

• Martin B held that in such a case there

could be no liability without negligence,
because otherwise the defendant would be
an insurer, which, in his view, would be
contrary to legal analogy and principle.

• Baron Bramwell dissented, holding that

the defendant should be liable on the
basis of strict liability.
 • The case went on appeal to the Court of
Exchequer Chamber, where Blackburn J
delivered the judgment of the Court,
finding for the plaintiff Mr. Fletcher.
Despite the absence of proof of negligence
on the part of Mr. Rylands, he was held
liable according to Blackburn J's classic
SECOND STAGE principle:

• “…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…”
 • The defendants appealed in the House of
Lords and the plaintiff was again successful.
The House of Lords aptly observed:

• “If a person brings or accumulates on his

THIRD STAGE land anything which, if it should escape
may cause damage to his neighbours he
does so at his peril. If it does escape and
cause damage he is responsible, however,
careful he may have been, and whatever
precaution he may have to prevent the
damage”.

• Prof. Clarence Morris
• “…one who should know that his activity, even
though carefully prosecuted, may harm others, and
should treat this harm as a cost of his activity. This
cost item will influence pricing, and will be passed
on to consumer spread so widely that no one will
be seriously affected”.
• Read v Lyons, [1947] AC 157 at p. 173 (HL)
• Lord Macmillan stated that 'the doctrine of Rylands v
Fletcher derives from a conception of mutual duties
of adjoining landowners and its congeners are
trespass and nuisance'.
• Hale v Jennings Brothers, [1938]1 ALL ER 579
• Scott LJ referred to the rule as 'a broad principle …
that the liability attaches because of the occupier of
the land bringing onto the land something which is
likely to do damage if it escapes'.
 • Read v Lyons, [1947] AC 157 (HL)

• Viscount Simon aptly put the essential

conditions to make one liable under
doctrine of strict liability as follows:
ESSENTIALS
• “Now the strict liability recognised by this
House in Rylands v. Fletcher is conditioned
by two elements which I may call the
condition of ‘escape’ from the land of
something likely to do mischief if it
escapes, and the condition of ‘non-
natural use of land’.
 • Read v Lyons Ltd [1947] AC 156
• It was argued that running ammunitions
factory in wartime is natural use of land.
• Lord Porter - ‘ All the circumstance of
the time and place must be taken into
1. NON-NATURAL USE OF consideration, so that what might be
LAND regarded as dangerous or non-natural may
vary according to those circumstance’.

• Musgrove v Pandelis [1919] 2 KB 43

• It was held that it was non-natural use to
keep a car with petrol in its tank in a garage.
 NATURAL USE OF LAND
• Storage of water in reservoir for mill or
use
• Storage of one or two gas cylinder for
domestic use
• Electricity connection to light the house
• Lighting an oil lamp in house
NON-NATURAL USE OF LAND
• Hostel Rooms at Cardiff- Students were
not allowed to lit lamps as the hostel
rooms had used wood. In such case it
may amount to non natural use of land.
• Lighting cigarette in the petrol pump or
preparing food thereby may also amount
to non natural use of land.
• Sochacki v. Sas, (1947)1All ER 344 • T. C. Balkrishna Menon v. T.R.
Subramanian, AIR 1968 Mad. 151
• B, who was a lodger in A’s house, lit a fire in his
room and went out. While he was out, his room
caught fire may be due to jumping of a spark. It • The Court held that the use of explosives in an
spread and damaged A’s property in the rest of open field on the occasion of festival is a “non-
the house.
natural” user of land.

• There was no evidence of negligence on the

part of B. It was held that B was not liable
under Rylands v. Fletcher since his use of the
fire in his grate was an ordinary, natural, proper,
everyday use of a fire place in a room.
• State of Punjab v. Modern Cultivators,
AIR 1965 SC 17
• Due to overflow of water from a canal, damage
was done to plaintiff’s property.
• The Supreme Court held that use of land for
construction of a canal system is a normal use
and thus not non natural use of land.
• Mukesh Textile Mills v. Subramanya Sastry
AIR1987 Kar. 87
• A was owner of a sugar factory. B owned land
adjacent to A’s sugar factory. A stored quantity of
molasses and it escaped to B’s land and damaged
his crop. B sued A.
• Collecting molasses in large quantities was held by
the Court to be non natural use of land and if a
person collected such things on his land and
escaped to neighbours land, he was liable.

2. ESC APE
Defendant would be liable only when there is
escape of the object from land of which he is in
occupation or control.
• There will be no liability unless there is an
escape of the dangerous materials from the
defendant’s land.
• Read v Lyons, [1947] AC 157 (HL)
• Appellant was employed as an Inspector of
Ammunition. She was injured by the
explosion of a shell while she was on
respondent’s premises in the performance of
her duties. Further there was no proof of
negligence on the part of the defendant.
• The Court held that the injury was caused
on the premises of the defendants i.e. not
outside, thus no escape thereby, the
respondents were not liable.
• Mason v Levy Auto Parts Ltd [1967]
2 QB 530
• The defendants were liable when
flammable material stored on their land
ignited and fire stored to neighboring
property. The storage of the materials
amounted to non-natural use of the land.
• Stockport MBC v. British Gas Plc.
[2001] EWCA Civ 212
• Water for domestic consumption, carried
in a service pipe was held not to be non-
natural use of land through which the
pipe ran.
 • A tigress chewed the hand of a three year old
child.
• While holding the Zoo authorities liable the
Court held that the zoo authorities being
ARUN KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA under absolute responsibility did not perform
their part of duty and thus should be
answerable to pay compensation.
AIR 2001 Delhi 140
 • A live wire got snapped and fell on the public road
which was partially inundated with rainwater. Not
noticing that wire, a cyclist, aged 37 years, while
returning home at night from the factory where he
was employed, rode over the wire which twitched
and snatched him and he was instantaneously
electrocuted.
• A claim for damages made by the dependents of the
deceased was resisted by the appellant State
Electricity Board on the ground that the
electrocution was due to the clandestine pilferage
committed by a stranger unauthorized siphoning the
M. P. ELECTRICITY BOARD V. electric energy from the supply line.
SHAIL KUMARI
• The High Court directed the Board to pay as
compensation, Rs. 4.34 lakhs to the claimants. In
Appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellant
(2002) 2 SCC 162 sought to rely on the exception to the rule of strict
liability being ‘an act of stranger’.
• “even assuming that all safety measures had been
adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving
hazardous or risky exposure to human life is liable
under law of torts to compensate for the injury
suffered by any other person, irrespective of any
negligence or carelessness on the part of the
managers of such undertaking. The basis of such
liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very
nature of such activity. The liability cast on such
person is known, in law,“strict liability”.
 • Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co. v. Hydraulic
Power Co [1914] 3 KB 772 (Water)
• Jones v. Ffestiniog Railway (1868) LR 3 QB 733 (Fire)
• Musgrove v. Pandelis [1919] 2 KB 43, Perry v. Kendricks
Transport Co [1956] 1 Weekly Law Reports 85 CA (A
Motor Vehicle)
• Goodbody v. Poplar BC [1915] 84 LJ KB 1230 (Gas)

STRICT LIABILITY IN UK – • National Telephone Co v. Baker [1893] 2 Ch 186

(Electricity)
PRESENT DAY
• West v. Bristol Tramways Co [1908] 2 KB 14 (Poison)
• Mulholland and Tedd Ltd v. Baker [1939] 3 All England
Application - Upheld
Law Reports 253 (Paraffin)
• A-G v. Cory Bros [1921] 1 AC 521(Colliery Spoil
Tipped On A Hillside Without Drainage
Provision )
• LMS International Ltd v. Styrene Packaging and
Insulation Ltd. [2005] EWHC 2065 (TCC) (Raw
polystyrene )
 • Fosbroke-Hobbes v. Airwork Ltd [1937] 1 All
England Law Reports 108 (An Aeroplane)

• Wray v. Essex CC [1936] 3 All England Law

Reports 97 (An Oil Can)

STRICT LIABILITY IN UK –
PRESENT DAY • Ball v. LCC [1949] 2 KB 159(A Boiler Without A
Safety Valve)

Application - Denied
• Transco Plc. v. Stockport MBC [2004] 1 All
England Law Reports 589 (Water Piped To A
Block Of Flats)
 • Plaintiff’s Consent
• Plaintiff’s Own Default
EXCEPTIONS • Act of Third Party
• Act of God/Vis Major
• Statutory Authority
 • Where the artificial work is maintained
with the plaintiff’s consent and for the
common benefit of the defendant, this rule
does not apply.

• Illustration:
1. PLAINTIFF’S CONSENT • water and fire- landlord and tenant
relationship

• Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre Ltd

[1943] 1 AC 521

• If the claimant has consented to the

accumulation of the dangerous things,
there will be a defence to Rylands v
Fletcher, particularly if the activity is for
the benefit of the claimant.
• Balakh Glass Emporium v. United
India Insurance Company Ltd., AIR
1993 Ker 342
• Taylor, the landlord, rented his upper
• The defendant was held not liable when
water escaped from upper floor and
damaged the lower floor because there
was an implied consent by occupier of
lower floor to the normal use of water
by the occupier of the upper floor.
• Carstairs v.Taylor, (1871) LR 6 Ex. 217
story to the plaintiff. Taylor, for the
benefit of both maintained a rain water
box. Some rats gnawed the water box
which resulted into escape of water and
damaging the goods of the plaintiff. The
defendant was held not liable as there
was plaintiff’s consent and no negligence
on the part of the defendant.
 • Eastern and SA Telegraph Co Ltd v.
Capte Town Tramway C Ltd [1962] AC
381
• If the escape is wholly the fault of the
claimant there will be no liability
2. PLAINTIFF’S OWN
DEFAULT
• If the claimant’s acts were merely
contributory, damages will be reduced fro
contributory negligence.
 • Where escape is caused by the act of
the third party over whom the
defendant has no control, he will not
be liable.

3. ACT OF THIRD PARTY • The intervention must be

unforeseeable for the defence to apply.
• Rickards v. Lothian, (1913) AC 263
• The plaintiff was tenant of the defendant on the
second floor. On the fourth floor of defendant’s
building a third party maliciously plugged up the
waste pipes and opened the water taps. As a
result, the plaintiff’s goods were damaged by the
flow of water from the lavatory on the fourth
floor.
• The defendant was held not liable as it was an act
of third party beyond his control and no proof of
negligence on his part.
• Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd [1956] 1 WLR
85
• A child threw a lit match into the empty petrol tank
of an old motor coach parked on the defendant’s
land. The petrol cap had been removed by some
unknown person. As their actions were
unforeseeable, the defendant escaped liability, and
much of the language used in the course of the case
was that of negligence.
 • “Act of God - circumstances which no
human foresight can provide against any of
4. ACT OF GOD/ VIS MAJOR which human prudence is not bound to
recognise the possibility, and which when
they do occur, therefore, are calamities
that do not involve the obligation of paying
for the consequences that result from
them”.
• Ryan v.Young, (1938) 1 All ER 522
• Driver of a lorry of the defendant died while
driving the lorry which thereon ran on and
injured the plaintiff. The driver before dying
appeared to be in good health. Further
defendant was not under duty to get the driver
medically examined. There was no fault in the
lorry.
• The defendant was held not liable.
• State of Mysore v. Ramchandra, AIR 1972 Bom
92
• Constructing a water storage to increase the supply
of water is natural use of land and a permitted act,
subject to application of emergency measure. One
such measure is to make arrangement for outlet of
water in case of emergency.
• It was not done in the present case which resulted
into the damage to the property of one and great
loss thereby.
• The defence of Act of God was not allowed.
 • Where the defendant is authorised or required
under the law to accumulate, keep or collect
the dangerous things which escape or cause
mischief and injures the plaintiff, the rule of
strict liability does not apply.

• Green v. Chelsea Waterworks, (1894) 70

LT 547
5. STATUTORY AUTHORITY
• The defendants were authorised by statute to
store water for the purposes of supply to the
city. Owing to some accidental cause the water
escaped and caused injury to the plaintiff.

• The Court held that where the accumulation

of water by the defendant was not for their
own purpose, and where they had been
authorised by statute to accumulate and keep
it, they would not be responsible for any
escape, unless it is result of the negligent act of
the defendants.
 • A German pharmaceutical company, Chemie
Gruenthal at Stolberg, synthesized thalidomide
in West Germany in 1953 while searching for
an inexpensive method of manufacturing
antibiotics from peptides.

• Thalidomide was first introduced in 1957

STRICT LIABILITY – FIT TO
RESOLVE?
primarily as tranquillizer, a medication
prescribed particularly for imparting
drowsiness and sleep. Then it was given to
pregnant women to provide them relief from
morning sickness and as an aid to help them
sleep.

• Before it was removed from market, an

estimated 8,000 to 12,000 infants were born
with deformities caused by thalidomide, and of
those only about 5,000 survived beyond
childhood.

• (For more information refer to Vijay V. Moghe,

Ujjwala Kulkarni and Urvashi I Parmar,
Thalidomide, Bombay Hospital Journal, Vol.
50, No. 3, 2008.)
 • Winfield – Because of the various limitations
and exceptions to the rule "we have virtually
reached the position where a defendant will
not be considered liable when he would not be
EXCEPTIONS TO DOCTRINE OF liable according to the ordinary principles of
STRICT LIABILITY: ARE THEY negligence".
LIMITATIONS ON IT?
• This repudiation of the principle in Rylands vs.
Fletcher is contrary to the modern judicial
philosophy of social justice.

• Vivienne Harpwood – “It is extremely

unusual for a claim under the rule in Rylands v.
Fletcher to reach the courts today”.
 • The Plaintiff, a girl of sixteen along with other
members got injured when an explosion blew
her off her cycle.

• The explosions which caused these accidents

DUNNE V. NORTH arose from a gas main and travelled along a
WESTERN GAS BOARD sewer becoming mixed with air and so
becoming highly inflammable and explosive.

(1964) 2 QB 806
• She sought judgment in her favour on the
ground that the Gas Board were in breach of
duty owed by them under the rule in Rylands v.
Fletcher.
• The Court while holding the Gas Board not
liable, observed:
• “[Gas] escaped and did damage without any
negligence on the part of the defendants or of
anyone else. It is not a case of an independent
contractor having been negligent as was the
case in Rylands v. Fletcher, which brought about
a decision in wide terms imposing liability on a
landowner for things which escaped from his
land, whereas in the present time the
defendant’s liability in that case could simply
have been placed on the defendant’s failure of
duty to take reasonable care to protect the
adjacent mines which were known to be there
or which ought to have been discovered with
reasonable care, and in respect of such a duty it
is no answer to say that the failure was that of
an independent contractor”.
 • Article 38(1) of the Constitution of India:
"the State shall strive to promote the welfare
of the people by securing and protecting as
effectively as it may a social order in which
justice, social, economic and political, shall
inform all the institutions of the national life".

• Being a welfare state, it is the duty of the State

STRICT LIABILITY: INDIAN under our Constitution to look after the
STANDPOINT – PRESENT welfare of all its citizens.
DAY • In various social welfare statutes the principle
of strict liability has been provided to give
insurance to people against death and injuries,
irrespective of fault.

• Section 3 - Workmen's Compensation

Act 1923 provides for compensation for
injuries arising out of and in the course of
employment, and this compensation is not for
negligence on the part of the employer but is a
sort of insurance to workmen against certain
risks of accidents.
 • Oleum gas leaked from one of the units of
Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries in
New Delhi. It resulted into death of one of the
advocate and caused serious injuries to several
others.
DEATH KNELL OF DOCTRINE
OF STRICT LIABILITY
• A writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution was brought by way of public
M.C . MEHTA V. UNION OF INDIA interest litigation. The Supreme Court of India
rejected the application of the rule of strict
liability in the following words:
AIR 1987 SC 1086
• “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 this country…Law cannot allow our judicial
thinking to be constrained by reference of the
law as it prevails in England or for the matter
of that in any other foreign legal order.”
• The Court also observed: “This rule evolved
in the 19th Century at a time when all these
developments of science and technology had
not taken place cannot afford any guidance in
evolving any standard of liability consistent
with the constitutional norm and the needs of
the present-day economy and social
structure.” It further held that, “Application of
exceptions to this rule is inapplicable.”
• Bhagwati, C.J. assertively announced the
entry of the rule of absolute liability and held
the Defendant liable in the following words:
• “…an enterprise, which is engaged in
hazardous or inherently dangerous industry
which poses a potential threat to the health
and safety of the persons working in the
factory and residing in the surrounding areas
owes an absolute and non-delegable
duty to the community to ensure that no
harm results to anyone on account of
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity
which it has undertaken.”
 • In this case, the rule of absolute liability applied
in the Oleum gas leak disaster case was
reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.

• In December 1984 Methyl Iso Cyanate and

other toxic gases leaked from the Union
Carbide Corporation India Ltd. at Bhopal.
UNION C ARBIDE CORPORATION About 2660 people died, several thousand
V. UNION OF INDIA suffered serious injuries which did not die with
that generation but also in cases got
transferred to their next generation.
AIR 1992 SC 248
• The Court on applying the principle of
absolute liability held the defendant liable to
pay US $470 Million dollars by way of
compensation to the victims or relatives of the
victims.
 • The issues were two-fold in the case:
• Should the Corporation be held responsible to
meet the cost of the remedial action to
remove and store the sludge in safe and proper
INDIAN COUNCIL OF ENVIRO - manner?
LEGAL ACTION V. UNION OF INDIA
• Should they be made liable for the loss and
suffering caused to the village where the
AIR 1996 SC 1466
industrial complex was located?
• To answer this, the court re-emphasised the Mehta
principle of absolute liability.
• ‘Generator is responsible’ is the universal principle
holding the health care establishments legally
accountable for damage caused by waste
management processes.
• The Court imposed on the respondent’s liability not
• The apex court called it a rule of "Polluter pays"
and stated that the industry alone has the resources
to discover and guard against hazards and dangers
caused by its actions.
• Justifying the stringent level of liability laid down, the
court also observed that persons affected do not
have this ability. It is also difficult for the victim to
establish the absence of reasonable care or
foreseeability of the industry. For these reasons, the
onus ought to lie on the industry.
only for environmental hazards, but also the cost of
all measures including remedial measures recovered
from them.

THE PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE
ACT, 1991
Section 2 (a) defines accident as follows:
“Accident means an accident involving a
fortuitous, sudden or unintentional occurrence
while handling any hazardous substance resulting
in continuous intermittent or repeated exposure
to death, of or injury to, any person or damage to
any property but does not include an accident by
reason only of war or radio-activity.”
Section 3 (1) - Where death or injury to any
person (other than a workman) or damage to any
property has resulted from an accident, the owner
shall be liable to give such relief as specified in
Schedule for such death, injury or damage.
Section 3 (2) - In any claim for relief under sub-
section (1)…the claimant shall not be required to
plead and establish that the death, injury or damage
in respect of which the claim has been made due to
any wrongful act, neglect or default of any person.
• The above provisions appear to be of immense
help and assistance to the victims of such
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity.

• Once one study Section 8, realises the hard

reality. It reads as:

• “1. The right to claim relief under sub-section

(1) of section 3 in respect of death of, or injury
to, any person or damage to any property shall
be in addition to any other right to claim
compensation in respect thereof under any
other law for the time being in force.

• 2. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-

section (1), where in respect of death of, or
injury to, any person or damage to any
property, the owner, liable to give claim for
relief, is also liable to pay compensation under
any other law, the amount of such
compensation shall be reduced by the
amount of relief paid under this Act.
 • The beauty of Law of Torts is that it is not
stagnant but is growing.

• Jay Laxmi Salt works (P) Ltd. vs. the

State of Gujarat, 1994 (3) SC 492
• "Law of torts being a developing law its
frontiers are incapable of being strictly
CONCLUSION barricaded".

• The American Restatement of Torts, Art

1; vide D. L. Lloyd
• "The entire history of the development of the
tort law shows a continuous tendency, which is
naturally not uniform in all common law
countries, to recognize as worthy of legal
protection, interests which were previously not
protected at all or were infrequently protected
and it is unlikely that this tendency has ceased
or is going to cease in future."