Prepared By: Madhulekha Bhowmik

Assistant Professor

Amity University Kolkata.

THE RULE OF STRICT LIABILITY

Definition: The rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, 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 the damage which is the natural
consequence of its escape - Blackburn, J.

Strict Liability

The earlier stated definition remains half done if the following terms are not emphasized upon:-

 Dangerous Thing: According to the above mentioned rule, the liability of escape of a
thing from a person’s land will arise only when the thing or substance collected is a
dangerous thing i.e. a thing which is likely to cause mischief or damage to other people in
person or their property on its escape. In various torts cases filed worldwide, the ones
involving the doctrine of strict liability have held “large body of water, gas, electricity,
vibrations, yew trees, sewage, flag-pole, explosives, noxious fumes, rusty wires, etc. as
dangerous things.

 Escape: The thing that has caused damage or mischief must ‘escape’ from the area under
the occupation and control of the defendant. This can be better explained by bringing in
two examples-

1. Case- Crowhurst vs.Amersham Burial Board, (1878) 4 Ex. D. 5; Cheater vs. Cater, (1908) 1
K.B. 247:-

If the branches of a poisonous tree that is planted on the defendant’s land spreads out to the
neighbouring plaintiff’s land, this amounts to the escape of that dangerous, poisonous thing from
the boundaries or control of the defendant and onto the plaintiff’s land. Now, the issue arises, if
the cattle of the plaintiff nibbles on these leaves, then the defendant will be held liable under the
mentioned rule even when nothing was done intentionally on his part.

2. Case- Read vs. Lyons and Co., (1947) A.C. 156:-

The plaintiff worked as an employee in the defendant’s shell manufacturing company, while she
was on duty within the premises of the company, a shell being manufactured there exploded due
to which the plaintiff suffered injuries. A case was filed against the defendant company but the
court let off the defendant giving the verdict that strict liability is not applicable here as the
explosion took place within the defendant’s premises, the concept of escape of a dangerous thing
like the shell from the boundaries of the defendant is missing here. Also negligence on the part of
the defendant could not be proved.

 Non-natural use of land: Water collected on land for domestic purposes does not
amount to non-natural use of land but storing it in huge quantity like that in a reservoir
amounts to non-natural use of the land (Rylands vs. Fletcher). This distinction between
natural and non-natural use of land can be made possible by its adjustment to existing
social conditions. Growing of trees is held natural use of land but if the defendant is
found to grow trees of poisonous nature on his land, then it is non-natural use of the land.
If the land has been used naturally yet a conflict has risen between the defendant and the
plaintiff, owing to natural use of land, the court will not hold the defendant liable.

 Mischief: To make the defendant liable under the doctrine of strict liability, the plaintiff
needs to prove that the defendant made non-natural use of his land and escape of the
dangerous thing caused mischief/damage to him. The resultant damage needs to be
shown by the plaintiff after successfully proving that unnatural use of the land was done
by the defendant.
Case:- In Charing Cross Electric Supply Co. vs. Hydraulic Power Co. (1914) 3 KB 772, the
defendants’ duty was to supply water for industrial works but they were unable to keep their
mains charged with the minimum required pressure which led to the bursting of the pipe line at
four different places resulting in heavy damage to the plaintiff which was proved with evidence.
The defendants’ were held liable in spite of no fault of theirs.

Brief Summary: Essentials for a tort to be held under the Doctrine of Strict Liability

a) Non-natural use of land must have taken place.

b) Escape of a dangerous thing from that land on which it was kept must have taken place.

c) The dangerous thing must have caused mischief.

A few instances where this rule is applicable:-

a) Activities involving non-natural use of land.

b) Activities involving dangerous operations such as blasting, mining, etc.

c) Liability arising out of keeping or taming dangerous animals.

d) Liability for dangerous structures e.g. building, ship, rail, etc.

e) Liability for dangerous chattels such as crackers, explosives, petrol, etc.

Inception of this rule: The Strict Liability principle is also called as ‘No Fault Liability’. This is
contradictory to the general principle of negligence in torts where a person can be held liable for
commission of a tort only when the plaintiff can prove negligence on his part and the defendant
himself is unable to disprove it. In the cases that I will now mention, the onus of being negligent
can be ignored. In spite of all due care taken by the defendant, he will invariably be held for the
consequences of the damages caused to any person outside of the boundary of the defendant’s
land by any hazardous thing that he maintained on the same stretch of land i.e. in spite of no
intentional or unintentional fault of his, the defendant can be held liable hence, explaining the
term ‘No Fault Liability’.

Rylands vs. Fletcher

This principle was first applied in the House of Lords in respect to the case ‘Rylands vs.
Fletcher, (1868)’.

Rylands vs. Fletcher, 1868: The defendant (Fletcher) an owner of a mill in Answorth with an aim
to improve water supply for his mill employed independent and efficient engineers for the
construction of a reservoir. During their excavation of the ground underneath, they came across
some shafts and passages but chose not to block them. Post construction of the reservoir when
they filled it with water, all the water flowed through the unblocked old shafts and passages to
the plaintiff’s (Rylands) coal mines on the adjoining land and inundated them completely. The
engineers kept the defendant in the dark about the occurrence of these incidents. On a suit filed
before the court by the plaintiff against the defendant, the court though ruled out negligence on
the defendant’s part but held him liable under the rule of Strict Liability. Any amount of
carefulness on his part is not going to save him where his liability falls under the scope of ‘No
Fault Liability’

Exception to the Rule of Strict Liability

There are certain exceptions to the rule of strict liability, which are-

1. Plaintiff’s Fault: If the plaintiff is at fault and any damage is caused, the defendant wouldn’t
be held liable, as the plaintiff himself came in contact with the dangerous thing.

In the judicial pronouncement of Ponting v Noakes, the plaintiff’s horse died after it entered the
property of the defendant and ate some poisonous leaves. The Court held that it was a wrongful
intrusion, and the defendant was not to be held strictly liable for such loss. There had been no
escape of the poisonous vegetation from his land and that the horse had reached over the
defendant’s boundary to eat the poisonous tree. Thus, it was due to the default of the plaintiff
himself that the horse died.

According to Cockburn, C.J., in Dunn v. Birmingham Canal Co., 1872, “ No action at law can
be maintained for an injury which has been brought about by the willful and the intentional act of
the party complaining, as its proximate and immediate cause, such act having been done by him
with open eyes, in other words, with the knowledge that the injury would be probable
consequence of the act so done by him.

2. Act of God: The phrase “act of God” can be defined as an event which is beyond the control
of any human agency. Such acts happen exclusively due to natural reasons and cannot be
prevented even while exercising caution and foresight. The defendant wouldn’t be liable for the
loss if the dangerous substance escaped because of some unforeseen and natural event which
couldn’t have been controlled in any manner.

As held in the case of Nichols vs. Marsland, which serves as a good example for the Act of God.
In this case, the defendant made artificial lakes over his land. That year there was unusual rain
which has never occurred in the human history. Due to heavy rain the lakes over flooded and has
caused damage to plaintiff’s property. It was held that the defendant couldn’t be made liable for
the event so happened was unforeseen and therefore the defendant couldn’t be held liable under
the rule of strict liability.

3. Act of the Third Party: The rule also doesn’t apply when the damage is caused due to the act
of a third party. The third party means that the person is neither the servant of the defendant, nor
the defendant has any contract with them or control over their work. But where the acts of the
third party can be foreseen, the defendant must take due care. Otherwise, he will be held
responsible.

When damage is caused due to wrongful act committed by a third party or any stranger over
whom the defendant had no control, the defendant will not be held liable under such
circumstances.
Case: Rickards vs. Lothian, (1913) - Some strangers blocked the waste pipe of a wash basin,
which was otherwise in the control of the defendant and left the tap open. The water overflowed
because of this mischief caused by the strangers and damaged the plaintiff’s goods. The
defendant was not held liable as this was an act of the stranger which could not be foreseen by
the defendant. However, when the act of the stranger can be foreseen by the defendant and
damage can be prevented from happening, proper care and duty must be exercised by the
defendant to prevent the act from occurring.

Case: Perry v. Kendricks Transport Ltd., (1956)- A child threw a match into an empty petrol
tank of a disused motor coach parked in waste land. There was an explosion which injured the
plaintiff. The defendants were held not liable because the explosion was caused by an act of a
stranger or third person over which they had no control. In such cases, the defendants have to
show that the escape was caused by an enforceable act of stranger and that there was no
negligence on their part.

Case: Box v. Jubb, (1879) - The reservoir of the defendants overflowed and caused damage to
the plaintiff. The defendants were held not liable because the overflow of the water was partly
due to the fact that a stranger or third person had emptied the defendant’s reservoir into the
stream. The plaintiff’s action failed because the escape was caused by the stranger over whom
and at a spot where the defendants had no control.

4. Consent of the Plaintiff: When the plaintiff has either expressly or impliedly consented to the
presence of a source of danger and also there has been no negligence on the defendant’s part, the
defendant will not be held liable. It is basically the defence of the maxim ‘Volenti non fit
injuria’ taken by the defendant in the court.

For example, when two persons are living on the different floors of the same building, each of
them is deemed to have consented to the installation of things of common benefit, such as the
water system, gas pipes or electric wiring. When water has been collected for the common
benefit of the plaintiff and defendant or to which the plaintiff has consented, the defendant will
not be held liable for the escape of such water unless there is a negligence on his part.

As in the case of, Carstair vs. Taylor as in the case of there was a double storied building, where
the plaintiff acquired a ground floor of the building and the defendant acquired the first floor.
There was a leakage of water from the upper floor of the building which the plaintiff and
defendant both have agreed to store. The defendant was at no fault for leakage. Due to the
leakage plaintiff good were damaged. It was held that the defendant couldn’t be made liable for
the damage as it was the consented act.

5. Common Benefit of Plaintiff and the Defendant: Where the act or escape of the dangerous
thing was for the common benefit of the defendant and plaintiff, the defendant will not be held
liable. The principle of strict liability does not apply where something is collected or brought into
existence for the common benefit of the plaintiff and the defendant.

6. Statutory Authority: If any act done under the authorization of the law/statute like the
government of a country or a state government, which causes any damage to a person, it acts as
a defence to an action for tort.

If the defendant has been authorized by a law or statute to store dangerous thing on his land and
if such dangerous thing escapes from his land then the defendant would not be liable unless and
until his negligence is proved. The rule is not applicable in cases where the defendant acted in
pursuance of an Act or in pursuance of statutory provision. It is necessary to prove negligence in
order to establish liability.

Case: Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Co., (1894) – A main water pipe belonging to the
defendant company burst and the water flooded the plaintiff’s property. It was held that the
company was not liable for it was authorized by an Act of the Parliament to lay the main, and
there was no negligence. To bring within this exception, the statute must authorize the use of the
dangerous thing either expressly or by implication. Mere permission to use it is not enough, in
other words, it must impose an obligation to do something rather than mere permission to do.
 RULE OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

The rule of absolute liability, in simple words, can be defined as the rule of strict liability minus
the exceptions. In India, the rule of absolute liability evolved in the case of MC Mehta v Union of
India. This is one of the most landmark judgment which relates to the concept of absolute
liability.

The facts of the case are that some oleum gas leaked in a particular area in Delhi from industry.
Due to the leakage, many people were affected. The Apex Court then evolved the rule of
absolute liability on the rule of strict liability and stated that the defendant would be liable for the
damage caused without considering the exceptions to the strict liability rule.

According to the rule of absolute liability, if any person is engaged in an inherently dangerous or
hazardous activity, and if any harm is caused to any person due to any accident which occurred
during carrying out such inherently dangerous and hazardous activity, then the person who is
carrying out such activity will be held absolutely liable. The exception to the strict liability rule
also wouldn’t be considered. The rule laid down in the case of MC Mehta v UOI was also
followed by the Supreme Court while deciding the case of Bhopal Gas Tragedy case. To ensure
that victims of such accidents get quick relief through insurance, the Indian Legislature passed
the Public Liability Insurance Act in the year 1991.

The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991

This act was introduced with the aim of providing immediate relief to people who are victims of
accidents in which handling of hazardous substances is involved. The main focus of the Act is to
create a public liability insurance fund which can be used to compensate the victims.

The Act states that any person who is carrying out inherently dangerous or hazardous activities
should have insurances and policies in place where he will be insured against liability to provide
compensation to the victims in case any accident takes place, and some injury occurs. This
liability is based on the principle of absolute liability. Inherently dangerous or hazardous
substance covers under its scope any mixture, preparation or substance which because of its
properties can cause serious harm to human beings, animals, plants, property or the environment.
If any substance is inherently dangerous or hazardous due to its handling also, then also the
absolute liability of the defendant arises.

The Rule of Absolute Liability under the National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995

To implement the decision of the U.N. Conference on Environment and development held in Rio
de Janeiro in June 1992 and to provide for strict liability for damages arising out of any accident
occurring while handling any hazardous substances, it is proposed to establish a National
Environment Tribunal for effective and expeditious disposal of cases arising from certain
industrial accidents and disasters with a view to provide effective and expeditious relief and
compensation for damages to human health, property and environment.

‘Hazardous substance’ means any substance or preparation which, by reason of its chemical or
physio- chemical properties or handling, is liable to cause harm to human beings, other living
creatures, plants, micro organisms, property or the environment as per Section 2 (e) of the
Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986.

According to section 3 of the National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995, where death of, or
injury to, any person or damage to any property or environment has resulted from an accident,
the owner shall be liable to pay compensation for such death, injury or damage. In any such
claim for compensation, 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 was due to any wrongful act,
neglect or default of any person.

Absolute Liability Inception in India:

The following modifications in the existing Doctrine of Rylands vs. Fletcher led to the following
Doctrine of Absolute Liability that prevented the defendants from taking up any defence against
payment of compensation:-

If an industry or enterprise is involved in any inherently dangerous activity, then for any damage
arising out of the conduction of that activity, the defendants (the owners of the industry) will
have no access to any defence or exception and will be absolutely liable to pay compensation to
the aggrieved parties. The enterprise will be held responsible for all possible damages or
consequences resulting from the activity.
The element of escape which is an essential in strict liability may be ignored here as this restricts
the application of this Doctrine of Absolute Liability as often incidents may arise where escape
of the dangerous thing like poisonous fumes may not take place outside the industry premises but
may damage the workers inside. In this case, the workers’ right to compensation will not be
ignored. Therefore, the extent of this principle is to be applied in a wider context ruling out the
element of escape.

In cases where strict liability applies, compensation paid is according to the nature and quantum
of damages caused but in cases of absolute liability, compensation or damage to be paid is
exemplary in nature. The amount decided upon should be more than the damage caused as
industrial hazardous accidents generally causes mass death and destruction of property and
environment.

A few cases where Absolute Liability was upheld:-

M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1086

The S.C. of India was dealing with claims of leakage of oleum gas on the 4th and 6th
December,1985 from one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries, Delhi. Due to
this leakage, one advocate and several others had died. An action was brought against the
industry through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution by way of a Public
Interest Litigation (PIL). The judges in this case refused to follow the Strict Liability Principle
set by the English Laws and came up with the Doctrine of Absolute Liability.

The principles of absolute liability as laid down in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India are the
following:

1. Firstly, only those enterprises will be liable which are engaged in hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity (i.e. those not falling under the category of such enterprises will be outside the
ambit of the rule of absolute liability, but the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher will be still applicable).

2. Secondly, the escape of a dangerous thing from one’s land to another is not necessary (i.e., the
rule will not be applied to those injured persons who are outside the premises but also to those
who are inside).
3. Thirdly, the rule is without any exception; and

4. Fourthly, the quantum of damages depends upon the magnitude and the financial capability of
the defendant’s enterprise.

Bhopal Gas Tragedy / Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 548

This doctrine was upheld in the infamous Bhopal Gas Tragedy which took place between the
intervening night of 2nd and 3rd December, 1984. Leakage of methyl-iso-cyanide(MIC)
poisonous gas from the Union Carbide Company in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh led to a major
disaster and over three thousand people lost their lives. There was heavy loss to property, flora
and fauna. The effects were so grave that children in those areas are born with deformities even
today. A case was filed in the American New York District Court as the Union Carbide
Company in Bhopal was a branch of the U.S. based Union Carbide Company. The case was
dismissed there owing to no jurisdiction. The Government of India enacted the Bhopal Gas
Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 and sued the company for damages on behalf of the
victims. The Court applying the principle of ‘Absolute Liability’ held the company liable and
ordered it to pay compensation to the victims.

Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1446

A PIL filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution voiced protests of the petitioners over the
presence of industries that was causing large scale environmental pollution and endangering the
lives of the villagers who resided in the vicinity of the industries. It violated their right to life and
liberty given under Article 21of the Indian Constitution as they were unable to live in a healthy
environment. The Supreme Court initiated instant action and ordered the Central Government
and the Pollution Control Board to constitute strict measures against the said industries. The
court upheld the Doctrine of Absolute Liability here stating that the polluted environment must
be restored to a pollution free one conducive for healthy living by utilizing anti-pollution
scientific appliances. The expenditure so incurred in this process must be paid by the industries
even if their properties need to be attached for this purpose. The industries were made absolutely
liable for paying monetary damages for restoration of the environment.

Difference between Strict and Absolute Liability

1. The rule of Rylands vs Fletcher arose due to the situation where something unusual brought
on the land while the rule of M.C. Mehta vs Union of India arose due to use of enterprise.

2. The rule of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India will not depend on the non natural use of land and
escape from the land of the defendant to impose this strict liability which were necessary aspects
of the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher. The only specific and significant requirement is that the
enterprise must have engaged in hazardous and inherently dangerous activity, and the harm
should have resulted out of such activity.

3. The rule of Ryland v. Fletcher does not envisage to compensate the harm caused to persons
within the premises because the rule requires escape of the thing, which causes harm from the
premises. The rule of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India makes no such distinction between persons
within the premises where the enterprise is carried on and persons outside the premises, for the
escape of the thing causing harm from premises, is not a necessary condition for the applicability
of the rule.

4. The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher is strict as liability is not dependant on any negligence on the
part of the defendant, however, it is not absolute because it is subject to exceptions. However, the
rule of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India is not only strict but also absolute, it is not subject to any
exceptions.

5. Damages available where the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher applies, will be ordinary or
compensatory but in case of the rule in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India applies, the court can allow
exemplary damages and the larger and more prosperous the enterprise, the greater must be the
amount of compensation payable by it.

6. The effect of damage in the cases such as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India is wide and covers a
larger group of society whereas the effect of damage in the cases such as Rylands v. Fletcher is
limited to the neighbors only.

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.