THE BHOPAL GAS CASE AND TORT LAW

BLJ 2.1 TORTIOUS LIABILITY

Submitted by :
Riddhi Garkoti

UID :
UGJ 23-30

B. A.LLB HONS. IN ADJUDICATION AND JUSTICING

Submiited to :

MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR

Introduction
The Bhopal Gas Tragedy stands as one of the most catastrophic industrial disasters in
history, serving as a stark reminder of the profound implications of corporate
negligence on human lives and the environment. On the night of December 2-3, 1984,
a Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, released toxic methyl isocyanate gas
into the surrounding urban landscape, resulting in the deaths of thousands and leaving
countless others with lifelong health complications. This tragic event triggered a
protracted legal battle, raising complex questions about corporate liability,
governmental accountability, and the efficacy of tort law in addressing mass disasters.

At its core, the Bhopal Gas Case represents a seminal moment in the evolution of tort
law, prompting scholars and jurists worldwide to scrutinize the adequacy of legal
frameworks in providing justice to victims of industrial calamities. This critical study
endeavors to delve deep into the multifaceted dimensions of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy
within the context of tort law, elucidating its implications on liability doctrines,
compensation mechanisms, and regulatory paradigms. By meticulously examining the
legal intricacies and socio-economic ramifications of the case, this analysis aims to
offer invaluable insights into the challenges of reconciling corporate interests with
public welfare and advancing principles of justice in an increasingly globalized world.

Reseach Objectives
 To Examine the history and situation which conditioned to this tragedy.
 To know how Law of torts and specifically which tort applies to this situation.
 To know the effect of this disastrous tragedy and aftermath of it in case of
Society, Government, Company etc.

Research Questions
 What were the cause and effect of Bhopal gas Tragedy and how the role of Torts
intervenes in it?
 Which tort has been specifically applied here to make the company liable also
give similar case laws realting to it.
Research Methodology
The Research is mainly Doctrinal. The information have been collected from various
secondary sources and research papers. I have also been through various official
records as primary sources.

Scope and Limitation

Scope : 1. Examination of the history and factors leading to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.
2. Analysis of the application of tort law, specifically negligence and strict liability, in
holding Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) accountable.
3. Assessment of the societal, governmental, and corporate impacts and responses
following the disaster.
Limitations:
1. Sole reliance on doctrinal research methodology, potentially limiting insights from
other research approaches.
2. Absence of primary sources beyond official records may restrict a comprehensive
understanding of the event.

Cause, effect and use of Torts in Bhopal gas tragedy

The Bhopal Gas Tragedy, one of the most devastating industrial disasters in history,
was precipitated by a combination of operational negligence, inadequate safety
measures, and regulatory shortcomings. On the fateful night of December 2-3, 1984, a
Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, released approximately 40 tons of
toxic methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas into the surrounding urban environment. This
catastrophic event resulted in the immediate deaths of thousands of individuals, with
estimates suggesting that over 500,000 people were exposed to the lethal gas. The
immediate cause of the disaster was a water ingress into a storage tank containing
MIC, triggering a runaway reaction and subsequent release of the highly toxic gas.
The effects of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy were manifold and enduring, encompassing a
wide spectrum of human suffering, environmental degradation, and socio-economic
disruption. The acute exposure to MIC gas led to a plethora of health complications
among survivors, ranging from respiratory disorders and neurological impairments to
ocular injuries and psychological trauma. The long-term consequences of the disaster
continue to haunt the survivors and their descendants, with many grappling with
chronic health issues and socio-economic marginalization. In the aftermath of the
Bhopal Gas Tragedy, the role of tort law emerged as a critical tool for seeking justice
and redress for the victims. Tort law, a branch of civil law concerned with addressing
civil wrongs and providing compensation for harm caused by wrongful acts, played a
pivotal role in holding Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) accountable for the disaster.
The victims and their families filed numerous lawsuits against UCC, alleging
negligence, strict liability, and breach of duty of care.1
Tort law intervened in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy by enabling the victims to pursue
legal recourse against UCC for the harm inflicted upon them. Central to the legal
claims were allegations of negligence on the part of UCC, including inadequate
maintenance of the plant, failure to implement proper safety protocols, and disregard
for the potential risks associated with storing hazardous chemicals. Moreover, the
concept of strict liability under tort law was invoked to hold UCC liable for the
hazardous activities conducted at the Bhopal plant, regardless of fault or intent. The
litigation surrounding the Bhopal Gas Tragedy underscored the complexities and
challenges inherent in seeking legal redress for mass disasters. The legal battles
dragged on for decades, navigating through jurisdictional issues, corporate indemnity
clauses, and governmental immunity. Despite securing a settlement of $470 million in
1989, the compensation awarded to the victims was widely criticized as inadequate,
considering the scale of the tragedy and the long-term health consequences faced by
the survivors.2

Specific Torts under which the defendants were to held liable.

In the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, several torts were applied to hold Union Carbide
Corporation (UCC) liable for the catastrophic consequences of its actions. One of the
primary torts invoked in this context is the tort of negligence. Negligence is a
1
Reports from governmental and non-governmental organizations - Reports from organizations
such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace, and governmental bodies provide valuable insights into
the socio-economic and environmental impacts of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, as well as the ongoing
efforts for justice and compensation
2
The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 - This legislation enacted by the
Indian government established claims tribunals for adjudicating claims related to the Bhopal Gas
Tragedy, reflecting the legislative response to the disaster.
fundamental principle of tort law that imposes a duty of care upon individuals or
entities to act reasonably and prudently, and holds them accountable for any harm
caused by a breach of this duty. In the case of Bhopal, UCC was found to have
breached its duty of care towards the residents of Bhopal by failing to take adequate
safety measures to prevent the release of toxic gases and mitigate the risks associated
with its operations.
A similar case where the tort of negligence was applied to hold a company liable for
an industrial disaster is the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) 3. In this landmark
case, the plaintiff, Mrs. Donoghue, consumed a bottle of ginger beer purchased by her
friend, which contained a decomposed snail. As a result, she suffered from severe
gastroenteritis and sued the manufacturer, Stevenson, for negligence. The House of
Lords held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to consumers and was therefore
liable for the harm caused by the defective product. This case established the principle
of duty of care owed by manufacturers to consumers, which has since been applied in
numerous cases involving product liability and industrial accidents.
Another tort that may be relevant to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy is the tort of strict
liability. Strict liability imposes liability on individuals or entities for harm caused by
certain inherently dangerous activities or products, regardless of fault or intent. In the
context of Bhopal, the storage and handling of toxic chemicals such as methyl
isocyanate (MIC) at the UCC plant could be considered inherently dangerous
activities, thereby making UCC strictly liable for any harm resulting from these
activities.
A comparable case where strict liability was applied is Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) 4. In
this case, the defendant, Fletcher, owned a reservoir on his land, which was
constructed by an independent contractor. The reservoir burst and flooded the
plaintiff's coal mine, causing extensive damage. The House of Lords held that
Fletcher was strictly liable for the harm caused by the escape of water from his
reservoir, even though he had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent such an
occurrence. This case established the principle of strict liability for the escape of
dangerous substances from one's land or property, which has since been applied in
various contexts, including environmental pollution and industrial accidents.

3
Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] UKHL 100, [1932] AC 562.
4
Rylands v. Fletcher, [1868] UKHL 1, (1868) LR 3 HL 330.
The torts of negligence and strict liability were likely applied in the legal proceedings
related to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy to hold UCC liable for the devastating
consequences of its actions. Similar cases such as Donoghue v. Stevenson and
Rylands v. Fletcher illustrate the application of these torts in holding individuals or
entities accountable for harm caused by negligence or inherently dangerous activities.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the Bhopal Gas Tragedy stands as a poignant reminder of the profound
ramifications of corporate negligence and the critical role of tort law in addressing
mass disasters. The catastrophic release of toxic methyl isocyanate gas in December
1984 resulted in extensive loss of life, long-term health complications, and socio-
economic upheaval, underscoring the urgent need for robust legal frameworks to hold
responsible parties accountable. Through the lens of tort law, the Bhopal Gas Case
exemplifies the application of principles such as negligence and strict liability to
establish liability for harm caused by industrial accidents.

The legal battles following the tragedy highlighted the complexities inherent in
seeking justice for victims, navigating jurisdictional challenges, corporate indemnity
clauses, and governmental immunity. Despite securing a settlement, criticisms
regarding the adequacy of compensation persist, reflecting broader questions about
the balance between corporate interests and public welfare.

Moreover, the parallels drawn with landmark cases such as Donoghue v. Stevenson
and Rylands v. Fletcher underscore the enduring relevance of tort principles in
addressing liability for industrial disasters. Moving forward, the Bhopal Gas Tragedy
serves as a compelling case study for scholars, policymakers, and jurists alike,
prompting critical reflection on the efficacy of legal mechanisms in promoting
accountability, ensuring redress for victims, and advancing principles of justice in an
increasingly intercon
nected world.
REFERENCES :
1. Agrawal, R. (2002). Bhopal gas tragedy: Legal issues and compensation.
Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 6(1), 15–18.
https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5278.50710
2. Appel, J. M. (2005). The Bhopal disaster and medical research: Lessons
learned and future directions. International Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Health, 11(3), 295–297.
https://doi.org/10.1179/oeh.2005.11.3.295
3. Chouhan, A., & Saraswat, A. (2012). Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Judicial
intervention for protecting rights. Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical
Research, 4(6), 3215–3221.
4. Dhara, V. R., & Dhara, R. (2002). The Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal: A
review of health effects. Archives of Environmental Health, 57(5), 391–404.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00039890209602943
5. Dutta, M. K. (2010). Industrial disasters: A study of Bhopal gas tragedy.
Journal of Economic & Social Development, 6(2), 49–59.
6. Jain, A., & Prakash, A. (2009). Corporate negligence: The Bhopal gas tragedy.
Indian Journal of Community Medicine, 34(3), 276–277.
https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-0218.55284
7. Mishra, A. K., & Bharti, S. K. (2010). Bhopal gas tragedy: A case study. Asia
Pacific Journal of Management and Entrepreneurship Research, 1(1), 32–46.
8. Sharma, D. (2004). Bhopal gas tragedy: An environmental disaster. Indian
Journal of History of Science, 39(2), 147–164.