DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE
AN OVERVIEW ON STRICT LIABILITY

SUBJECT
LAW OF TORTS

NAME OF THE FACULTY/PROFESSOR

Ms B.V.S SUNEETHA
Name of the Candidate
SIDDHI VINAYAK

Roll No: 22LLB133

Semester 1
 CERTIFICATE

I, SIDDHI VINAYAK , hereby declare that this project titled AN OVERVIEW ON STRICT
LIABILITY ” submitted by me is an original work undertaken by me, all sources and
references from which ideas and excerpts were derived have been properly credited. This
project is free of plagiarism and does not employ any unethical practices. If any kind of
unauthorized things are found only I will be responsible and will only be liable .

SIDDHI VINAYAK

22LLB133

Semester I
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SI TITLE Page No.

1. Acknowledgement………………………………………........... 4

2. Abstract………………………………………………………… 5

3. Introduction and Synopsis…………………………………… 6

4. Overview on strict Liability ………………………………… 7

5. English law regarding Strict liability……………………. 8

6. Essentials of Strict liability ………………………… 9

7. Exception to Strict Liability Rule ………………………. 10

9. Important Cases Regarding Strict Liability …………………. 12

10. Indian Judiciary Application………………………………… 14

11. Conclusion ………………………………………………. 15

.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my gratitude to Ms B.V.S SUNEETHA , our esteemed Law of torts
professor, has provided me with a platform and opportunity to work on this provoking and
informative project on the theme of 'STRICT LIABILITY ' It aided my investigation and
development of my viewpoint on the subject. My lecturer provided me with appropriate
guidance as well as consistent support while formatting this project. I will be able to use the
abilities I learned in the future.

I'd also want to show my gratitude to the academic department and library of
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY for their ongoing
assistance and availability of resources and books, without which it would have been difficult
to accomplish this project before the deadline.

Lastly, I would also like to thank my batchmates for their ideas and perspectives, which
helped me improve my project and without that this project was incomplete .

Byheart Thank you, everyone.

 ABSTARCT

Under the doctrine of torts, the strict liability principle is a crucial idea. The inherent harm
that particular behaviours can cause serves as the fundamental underpinning of this principle.
This regulation, for instance, applies to the release of dangerous gases, as it did in the Bhopal
Gas Tragedy. Even if a person is not at fault, the strict liability rule requires them to pay
damages reparation. In other words, even if someone takes all the essential safeguards, they
still have to compensate the victim. In practice, this idea is frequently a prerequisite for
licences that permit such operations.

In both criminal and civil law, strict responsibility is a level of accountability that holds a
person accountable for the results of their actions even in the absence of their negligence or
criminal intent.

No matter how carefully the defendant protects any items that are intrinsically harmful, as
defined by the "ultrahazardous" criteria, the defendant is nevertheless strictly accountable for
any damages resulting from such ownership under the strict liability rule.

In the area of torts, significant examples of strict responsibility may include product liability,
unusually risky activities (such as blasting), livestock trespassing on another's property, and
wild animal ownership.

This project helped me to gain more knowledge about various aspects and prospects about
strict liability as for this project completion I have which will help me further ahead in my
higher and deeper studies .
 SYNOPSIS

INTRODUCTION-

In tort law, strict responsibility refers to placing a party under liability without a finding of
guilt (such as negligence or tortious intent). The plaintiff merely needs to demonstrate that
the defendant committed the tort and that it happened. Situations that the law deems to be
inherently harmful are subject to strict responsibility. By requiring potential defendants to
take all reasonable precautions, it deters careless behaviour and avoidable loss. Although the
imposition of strict liability may seem unfair or harsh, as in Re Polemis, it has the
advantageous effect of simplifying and so speeding up court rulings in these circumstances.

Even in cases where strict tort responsibility applies, the defendant may occasionally only be
held accountable for the reasonably foreseeable effects of their actions under English law's
negligence and nuisance laws.

In cases of strict liability, even though the plaintiff is not required to prove fault, the
defendant may raise the defence of lack of fault. This is particularly true in cases of product
liability, where the defence may contend that the defect was caused by the plaintiff's actions
and not the product itself, and that no defects should be inferred from accidents alone.
Additional punitive damages may be granted to the victim in some jurisdictions if the
plaintiff can demonstrate that the defendant was aware of the flaw before the damages
manifested.
 OVERVIEW
“Absolute legal responsibility for an injury that can be imposed on the wrongdoer without pro
of of carelessness or fault.”

Historically, strict liability has been utilised in tort law to account for animal-related harms.
Those who keep animals have a responsibility to restrain them because they lack a conscience
and have a vast capability for mischief if not restrained. The usual law in most jurisdictions is
that owners of all animals, including domesticated ones, are severely accountable for any
harm caused by their pets trespassing on someone else's property. However, unless the
owners have been careless or unless severe accountability is mandated by law or code,
owners of dogs and cats are not responsible for the transgressions of their pets.

The law differs between domesticated and wild animals in terms of culpability for harm other
than trespass. Only if the keeper had real knowledge that the animal had the specific trait or
propensity that caused the injury is the keeper of domesticated animals, which includes dogs,
cats, cattle, sheep, and horses, strictly accountable for any harm that they cause. Both the
feature and the injury must be one that has the potential to be destructive. However, several
countries have passed laws that, in the case of dog bites, impose complete culpability without
requiring knowledge of the dog's viciousness.

Whether or whether the animal in issue is known to be dangerous, owners of animals that are
often regarded as "wild" in that area are absolutely accountable for the harm their pets do if
they stray. No matter how thoroughly taught or domesticated they are, these creatures are still
regarded as wild since they have a tendency to revert to their original characteristics.

In the latter part of the nineteenth century, strict responsibility for injuries caused by
unusually risky situations and activities emerged. It will be applied if the damage is caused by
an activity that, while legal, is uncommon, remarkable, exceptional, or improper in light of
the setting and conditions under which it is carried out. Storing explosives or flammable
substances, blasting, piling sewage, and releasing poisonous gases are examples of common
hazardous behaviours that might result in strict responsibility. Even if they could be risky,
some actions might be acceptable or usual in one place but not in another.

For instance, storing huge quantities of pyrotechnics in the middle of a major metropolis
presents an exceptional and unacceptable risk, but not in a remote rural location. Strict
accountability will only be applied in the event of an explosion in a remote area if the
explosives were stored in an unusual or unusual manner.

IN ENGLISH LAW

In the past, English law and Scots law both recognized strict responsibility on a great number
of occasions. Liability for annoyance, non-natural use of land, fire escaping, and, under legal
system, for wild animals are the primary situations in English law (ferae naturae). With the
possible exception of the diversion of a natural stream until the issue is decided, it is now
recognised in Scotland that neither annoyance nor non-natural user are instances of strict
liability but are instead regulated by the idea of blame..

Because of the lack of a defence, UK law usually imposes strict liability that is so severe that
it is more correctly referred to as absolute responsibility. In the UK, there are three primary
cases of statutory strict liability: the employer's responsibility for employees under certain
conditions; the keeper's liability for animals under certain conditions; and the producer's and
others' liability for defective products under certain circumstances. Other types of pollution
that are less frequently mentioned include nuclear accidents, oil pollution, and "ordinary"
pollution.

. Liability in a contract is typically regarded to be stringent since it requires performance

according to the terms of the agreement. However, the parties may have tacitly or formally
agreed that, for instance, only reasonable caution should be applied. In some circumstances,
the theory of exasperation can release a party from their duty.

Strict responsibility is an exception to the general principle of liability in criminal law, which
typically stipulates that it is required to show mens rea. However, many statutory offences,
notably those covered by the Road Traffic Acts, do not call for this. Once more, some of
these offences result in total responsibility if there is no defence or remedy.
Essentials of Strict Liability
Hazardous Substances:

The defendant will only be strictly accountable if a "hazardous" material escapes from his
property.

Any material that may create trouble or injury if it escapes qualifies as a dangerous substance
for the purposes of strict liability. One might classify items as dangerous if they include
explosives, harmful gases, electricity, etc.

Escape:

The substance must escape from the premises and must not be within the defendant's grasp
once it has escaped in order for the defendant to be held severely accountable.

Non-natural Use:

The use of the land must not be natural in order to give rise to strict liability. The water
stored in the reservoir was regarded as an unnatural use of the property in the Rylands v.
Fletcher decision. Water storage for home purposes is regarded as a natural usage. However,
the Court deemed it abnormal to store water in order to power a mill. It is important to keep
in mind that for something to be called "non-natural," it must be put to some unique purpose
that makes it more dangerous for other people. One definition of a natural use of land is the
provision of cooking gas via a pipeline, the wiring of a home, etc.

For example, the defendant won't be held accountable if he builds a fire in his fireplace and a
spark escapes, starting a fire, because it was a normal use of the property.

For there to be strict liability, all three of these requirements must be met.
Exception to the strict liability rule

The strict accountability rule has certain exceptions, which include:

Plaintiff's Fault:

If the plaintiff is at fault and any harm is created, the defendant wouldn't be made responsible
since the plaintiff himself came into touch with the dangerous item.

The plaintiff's horse passed away after entering the defendant's land and ingesting some toxic
plants, in accordance with the court decision in Ponting v. Noake . It was an unauthorized
intrusion, the court said, and the defendant could not be held strictly accountable for the
damage.

Act of God:

An event that is uncontrollable by any human agent is referred to as a "act of God." Even
with prudence and forethought, such acts cannot be stopped since they only occur for natural
reasons. If the release of the toxic material was caused by an unforeseeable, uncontrollable
natural catastrophe, the defendant would not be responsible for the damage.

Act of the Third Party:

When damage is brought on by the act of a third party, the rule also does not apply. The term
"third party" denotes a person who is neither the defendant's employee nor under the
defendant's control or bound by any contract. But the defendant must use reasonable caution
in cases when the actions of the third party may be predicted. He will be held responsible if
not.

For instance, the Court determined that the defendant wouldn't be responsible in the case of
Box v. Jubb , where the defendant's reservoir overflowed as a result of another party
discharging his drain into the defendant's reservoir.

Plaintiff's consent:

This alternative abides by the violenti non fit injuria rule.

If A and B, for example, share a water supply that is on A's property and if the water escapes
and harms B, B cannot sue for damages since A is not responsible for the damage.
Important Cases Regarding Strict Liability

Rylands v. Fletcher, L.R. 3, H.L. 330 (1868).

The strict responsibility principle was initially established in this case in the nineteenth
century.

Rylands created a reservoir on his property to supply water to his mill, which he owned. To
build the reservoir, he hired engineers and contractors. These workers discovered during
construction that it was being built over a defunct coal mine, but they failed to inform
Rylands of this information. After the reservoir was finished, it cracked and overflowed
Fletcher's nearby coal mines, causing damage to his property, and he filed a lawsuit against
Rylands.

Question: Is someone strictly accountable for any damage produced by an object that enters
someone else's property legitimately and then disturbs its natural condition by having it have
the potential to do harm if it escapes?

It was decided by the court that Rylands constructed the reservoir at his own risk and that he
is thus responsible for any harm incurred during construction, including the accident and the
release of any water.

The accused brought water to his property, which was not something that naturally existed
there like thistles or rocks.

 There was a non-natural use of land: The water was the non-natural element
since it didn’t naturally occur there.
  Escape: The water from the reservoir escaped from the defendant’s land to the
plaintiffs land which caused him to suffer damages.
Thus the case fulfilled all the ingredients that constitute to strict liability. Rylands was held
liable for the damages caused to Fletcher’s property and was compensated for the physical
harm caused to his land.

J Lyons [1947] AC 156 Read v.

Facts: The Ministry of Defense hired the plaintiff (Read) to inspect the Lyons weapons
facility on behalf of the defendant (Lyons). A shell explosion occurred while she was
working, killing one person and injuring the appellant and others. The business served as the
mystery's agents, and no allegations of malpractice were made.

Questions: Whether the producers of these high-shell explosive facilities have a "strict
responsibility" obligation to stop the explosions and injury they may cause to people on and
off the grounds.

Held: According to the Rylands v. Fletcher decision, the strict liability rule outlines the two
necessary conditions for the rule to apply, namely the defendant's non-natural use of the
property and the escape of something dangerous from the land that might cause damage. The
"escape" was a crucial component of the two requirements that the rule required, according to
Viscount Simon, the judge in the current case. Because the plaintiff was hurt inside the
premises by the explosion, there was no way for her to leave the defendant's property in this
instance, therefore strict responsibility was not applicable. Due to the absence of the "escape"
of the hazardous substance, the united states receive a favourable judgement. There was no
cause of action on which the plaintiff could succeed. Therefore no compensation was
received by the plaintiff in this case.
THE INDIAN JUDICIARY'S APPLICATION OF STRICT
LIABILITY

Mishra CJ questioned if the law that was created to safeguard the Bhopal catastrophe victims
was right in its application in the matter of Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India. The Oleum
gas leak case was allegedly an obiter. In the case of Indian Council for Environmental Legal
Action v. Union of India[7], the court rejected these doubts, and the M.C. Mehta case was not
designated as obiter. The court in the Indian Council case, mindful of the absolute culpability
principle, assessed the defaulting business (HACL) a punishment of Rs. 38.385 crores with
compound interest since

establishing the "polluter pays" concept in 1997, which states that the polluter is responsible
for any harm done to people or the environment.

The Kerala High Court noted that the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) was engaged in
such a dangerous activity that it was absolutely liable for any damage caused as a result of it
in a case[8] where the plaintiff's husband died as a result of getting electrocuted due to gross
negligence on the part of KSEB. In Union of India v. Prabhakaran[9], the court rejected the
Railways' argument and ruled that the plaintiff's wife's "contributory negligence" should not
be taken into account in situations where the Railways had a strict obligation, putting the
State and its officers in liability.

The M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari & Ors case involved the Electricity Board being
forced to pay damages for electrocuting a bicycle when a livewire cracked and fell into a
public road that was partially submerged in water. The supreme court examines the
possibility of strict responsibility in this case.

The rule has also been taken into account by the courts in a number of situations to determine
the legitimacy, appropriateness, and sum of damages to be paid by the defendants, in addition
to determining whether punitive or aggravated damages should be granted. As a result, it is
clear that the Indian Judiciary has widely acknowledged and utilised these ideas, even in
current instances.
CONCLUSION

As shown by the aforementioned justifications, it is clear that the absolute liability rule is
crucial in India today in order to ensure that the nation's ever-increasing number of industries
that deal with hazardous materials and thus engage in intrinsically dangerous activities
maintain a strict eye on the fundamental safety standards of both their employees who work
in such conditions and the residents of the surrounding community by holding them fully
accountable for any damages.

It is crucial to track the judiciary's shift from its long-standing position that public businesses
performing such services should not be held accountable for their actions while they operate
for public benefit, has changed with time and now they are held equally liable as the private
industries are. The present structure of the principle has so far turned out to be sufficient in
regulating these practices and so there is not an immediate need for reform although a better
recognition of it by the legislation is required.
 BIBILOGRAPHY

Recent Decisions: Products Liability: Strict Liability in Tort Applied to Both Automobile
Manufacturer and Retailer, available
at: http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/2D83321D-590A-4646-83F6-
9D8E84F5AA3C.pdf

* IPLEADERS WEBSITE
*CHAPTER 14,15 ,16 OF “ LAW OF TORTS “ by Dr. R.K Bangia

*some other reference books from library .

* LAWOCTOPUS