Assignment

Law of Torts and Consumer Protection

Course: L-CT-0002

Professor Daniel H. Stein

Professor Varsha Mohan

Case:
Bruce Chemicals
(spill of chemicals causing harm)

Submitted by:

Amshul Bhatia

B.B.A.LL.B.

Section E

JGLS (JGU)

Roll no:

21012322
Context of the case:

This case is about a chemical trading company in whose warehouse during some repair work

the containers were kept at the gate and one of the containers rolled to the adjacent premise,

spilling the chemical in it and caused harm to both people and amenities.

Potential liability:

There are three sorts of torts and according to my understanding the defendant would be

forced to compensate the damages certainly under the tort of absolute liability where there

are no defences and there may be a chance when the defendant is also convicted under tort of

negligence. Tort of negligence is a violation of a reasonable standard of care that results in

injury to someone else. In a nutshell, a person is expected to behave in a reasonable manner

while dealing with other people. That person is negligent if he or she fails to behave

appropriately and causes damage to others. According to the reading it has been clearly

mentioned that there were proper taken care taken in the storage of the chemicals and yearly

repairs of the warehouse were also taken. This can be stated by the following lines “They had

stringent segregation systems and safety standards to avoid any accidents due to the volatile

nature of their products. They had yearly repairs done.”

Now speaking from the plaintiff side:

By reviewing the occurrence carefully, it is evident that the defendant did

exercise reasonable degree of care in preserving his goods however this stands

true in circumstances of storage of his products Whereas in situations of repair

there was a breach of his duty of acting as a reasonable person as the chemicals
were left unattended near the gate of the warehouse. In such a scenario, it's

probable that containers may be mishandled, resulting in incidents like the

container being broken by a nearby ball of children playing or a vehicle

slamming into it, causing significant damage to the area immediately around the

incident or the one that actually happened. Hence the defendant should be held

liable for not taking the reasonable care for what may be a foreseeable incident

and hence be convicted for tort of negligence and should be bound to pay the

damages. Moreover, the corporation should be very careful of the fact that the

containers did not house regular commodities but hazardous chemicals and

should be conscious of the fact that it should be treated with great sensitivity at

all instances of time. Containers should be managed appropriately in the

warehouse during repair time and not merely left unattended by the door,

which should be regarded negligence on behalf of the businesses and thus be

responsible to pay damages for the injury to plants and people. It's not enough

to dismiss this situation as an accident.

Possible defence from the defendant side:

It could be possible for the defendant to claim that in the ordinary circumstance he took

appropriate reasonable care. But in the current circumstances the probability of the situation

happening was so rare that it couldn’t be easily predicted. He can claim that he took all the

precautionary steps where possible and the repair was a very temporary procedure and he
didn’t have all the means to take such high level of precautions. Moreover, it is not possible

for a reasonable person to be able to foresee every slightest of threat and then have the means

to take every possible precaution. He has the option of stating that the occurrence that just

occurred was an accident and that he will not be held responsible for it. There was almost no

possibility that what happened could have been predicted, and there was no chance at all that

what occurred could be foreseen. He may bolster his position by arguing that whatever

occurred was completely unintentional and that there could be no intentions behind causing

of such damage. Moreover, he can shift his blame on the repair worker which he hired who

were undertaking the activity by claiming that it was not him who did not exercise the

reasonable care, but the repair worker who shifted the container and then left then

unattended. First and first, the defendant used reasonable care; second, it was an accident;

and third, the repair worker bears the brunt of the burden, not him.

Conclusion

What I believe is that the defendant does have a reasonable point and there is a line after

which a person should not be held liable for not behaving a reasonable manner. What

happened, in my opinion, may be classified as an accident. Furthermore, in the negligent

section, the carelessness was more on the part of the repair workers than the company, since

it is impractical to micromanage every little detail. Now it depends on the judges that what is

their criteria of standard of reasonable care and how does it stand in their interpretation of the

case.

Moving on to absolute liability (No Fault Liability):

Absolute liability is something which makes this case absolutely clear. An absolute liability

is placed upon a person or organisation involved in a hazardous or potentially dangerous

industry who, by reason of negligence or an act or omission, causes damage or injury to

another person or property. Because of the nature of this form of liability, no evidence of

fault or negligence is required to hold a person or organisation accountable. When dealing

with hazardous materials, the trading company should be held accountable for any damage

caused by their product. If associate degree trade is involved in some sort of unsafe action

from that it’s explaining industrial gain which activities, somehow, finishes up in mass harm

or pain, then, the responsibility is that the absolute liability. Exceptions to this rule, such as

an act of God or an accident, are not applicable. Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether the

defendant was negligent or not, or if the incident was accidental or not. This is different from

the cases of Rylands v. Fletcher in which there was strict liability and room for exceptions.

Absolute liability held that no exceptions may be made to the norm, and here is how the rule

was summarised in those words: Our position would be the following: If, during the course

of its operations, a company is involved in a hazardous or otherwise dangerous activity that

results in the release of toxic gas, for example, harm to any person is caused, the company is

strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are harmed and this liability is not

subject to any exceptions that may exist. The Supreme Court cited two grounds for their

decision: There is a societal duty to recompense individuals who suffer as a result of such a

hazardous and intrinsically risky action for private profit, and the company should bear such

a loss as an item of overheads. Second, only the company has the resources to find and

safeguard the information and protection against such threats and hazards. The following are

the exact terms used to describe the position: It is assumed that if an organisation is allowed

to engage in any hazardous or intrinsically risky activity for profit, the law requires that the

enterprise bear the cost of an incident resulting from the activity itself, as an acceptable item
of its overheads. Inherently harmful activities for private gain may only be permitted on the

condition that the company involved in such activities compensates all people who suffer as

a result of the activity's conduct, regardless of how skilfully it is conducted or not. In

addition, the firm has resources to find and defend against risks or dangers, as well as to offer

notice of possible threat. The court also stated that when the principle of absolute liability is

applied, "the death toll would not be applicable to the determination of liability," and that in

the event of any kind of damages occurring as a result of such accident, all hospital costs

from disease to death must be borne by the respective industry itself.

Similar cases relating to this:

1. Rylands v. Fletcher

2. Oleum gas leak case – MC Metha V. union of India

3. Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India etc. on 4 May, 1989 – Bhopal gas leak

case

Recent instances like these:

1. Vizag gas leak case

Final conclusion:

Bruce Chemicals Trading ("Bruce Chemicals") has encountered a failure in the handling of

some of their goods, resulting in damage to his adjacent premises. The damage has been

inflicted both financially and physically on the health of employees. The trading corporation

may or may not be accountable for negligence in failing to exercise a reasonable standard of

care, but one thing is certain: they are obligated to pay damages under the doctrine of
absolute liability. Because the trading business was engaged in non-natural hazardous

activities for profit, they are certain to be found guilty under the tort of absolute liability,

with no defences available to them. They are obligated to pay compensation and bear the cost

of providing adequate healthcare to the injured.

Bibliography
 “Types of Torts - Explained.” The Business Professor, LLC, 24 Sept. 2021,

thebusinessprofessor.com/en_US/criminal-civil-law/what-are-the-types-of-torts.

 “Strict Liability And Absolute Liability| No Fault Based Liability| Relevant Case

Laws.” YouTube, uploaded by LEGAL REALM, 23 Mar. 2020,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVUjkgm-

QlQ&list=PLFlrStUU7BoQICoTa4p4PmsPcEBmzGgck&index=2.

 Insuranceopedia. “Absolute Liability.” Insuranceopedia.Com, 30 Apr. 2018,

www.insuranceopedia.com/definition/553/absolute-liability.

 Kantya, Litendra Jeet. “Absolute Liability.” Indian Law Portal, 29 Sept. 2020,

indianlawportal.co.in/absolute-liability.

 Malepati, Haritha. “Oleum Gas Leak Case - MC Mehta v. Union of India.” Law

Column, 2 Dec. 2020, www.lawcolumn.in/oleum-gas-leak-case-mc-mehta-v-union-

of-india/#:%7E:text=The%20Oleum%20Gas%20leak%20case%20is%20a

%20landmark,was%20not%20enough%20to%20protect%20the%20citizen

%E2%80%99s%20rights.

 Hettiarachchi, Tharuka. “Legal Aspects of Bhopal Gas Leak Tragedy.” Law Column,

1 Dec. 2020, www.lawcolumn.in/legal-aspects-of-bhopal-gas-leak-tragedy.

 Travis. “Rylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1 – Law Case Summaries.” Law Case

Summaries, 12 May 2019, lawcasesummaries.com/knowledge-base/rylands-v-

fletcher-1868-lr-3-hl-330.

 Admin. “Rylands v. Fletcher | Case Brief for Law Students.” CaseBriefs, 18 Aug.

2020, www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-dobbs/the-development-of-

common-law-strict-liability/rylands-v-fletcher.