AMITY LAW SCHOOL

AMITY UNIVERSITY, KOLKATA

A RESEARCH ASSIGNMENT ON

“STRICT LIABILITY”

SUBMITTED TO – Ms. Madhulekha Bhowmik

(FACULTY OF “LAW OF TORTS”)

SUBMITTED BY:

LAKHSHITA SINGH – ENROLLMENT NO. – A90856123018

VAISHNAVI BHARTI – ENROLLMENT NO. – A90856123009

SANSKAR GUPTA – ENROLLMENT NO. – A90856123011

BATCH OF 2023 – 2026

DATE OF SUBMISSION – 2nd NOVEMBER 2023

1
 DECLARATION

I, Lakhshita Singh, student of Amity Law School Kolkata, hereby declare that the project
work entitled “STRICT LIABILITY” submitted to the AMITY Law School, AMITY
University, KOLKATA is a record of an original work done by me under the guidance of Ms.
Madhulekha Bhowmik, teacher in subject, AMITY Law School, AMITY University,
KOLKATA.

Name: Lakhshita Singh (Enrollment No. - A90856123018) Batch – 2023 - 2026

I, Vaishnavi Bharti student of Amity Law School Kolkata, hereby declare that the project
work entitled “STRICT LIABILITY” submitted to the AMITY Law School, AMITY
University, KOLKATA is a record of an original work done by me under the guidance of Ms.
Madhulekha Bhowmik, teacher in subject, AMITY Law School, AMITY University,
KOLKATA.

Name: Vaishnavi Bharti (Enrollment No. – A90856123009) Batch – 2023 – 2026

I, Sanskar Gupta student of Amity Law School Kolkata, hereby declare that the project work
entitled “STRICT LIABILITY” submitted to the AMITY Law School, AMITY University,
KOLKATA is a record of an original work done by me under the guidance of Ms.
Madhulekha Bhowmik, teacher in subject, AMITY Law School, AMITY University,
KOLKATA.

Name: Sanskar Gupta (Enrollment No. – A90856123011) Batch – 2023 – 2026

Date: 2nd November 2023

2
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project report entitled “STRICT LIABILITY” submitted by
Lakhshita Singh, Vaishnavi Bharti & Sanskar Gupta in partial fulfilment of the
requirement for the award of degree of “Batch” to AMITY Law School, AMITY University,
KOLKATA is a record of the candidate’s own work carried out by him under my
supervision. The matter embodied in this project is original and has not been submitted for
the award of any other degree.

DATE: 2nd November 2023 (Ms. Madhulekha Bhowmik)

Teacher in subject

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would especially like to thank my guide, mentor, Ms. Madhulekha Bhowmik without whose
constant support and guidance this project would have been a distant reality.

This work is an outcome of an unparalleled infrastructural support that I have received from
AMITY Law School, AMITY University, KOLKATA. I owe my deepest gratitude to the
library staff of the college.

It would never have been possible to complete this study without an untiring support from my
family, especially my parents.

This study bears testimony to the active encouragement and guidance of a host of friends and
well-wishers.

Date: 2nd November 2023

Name: Lakhshita Singh (Enrollment No. – A90856123018) Batch – 2023 – 2026

Name: Vaishnavi Bharti (Enrollment No. – A90856123009) Batch – 2023 – 2026

Name: Sanskar Gupta (Enrollment No. – A90856123011) Batch – 2023 – 2026

4
 CONTENTS

TOPIC PAGE NO.

1. Declaration 2
2. Certificate 3
3. Acknowledgment 4
4. Introduction 6
5. Historical Overview 7
6. The Doctrine of Strict Liability 9
7. Essentials of Strict Liability 10
8. Exceptions to the Rule of Strict Liability 11
9. Conclusion 14
10. References 16

5
 INTRODUCTION

In the intricate landscape of Law of Torts, the concept of strict liability stands as a distinctive
pillar, often stirring vigorous debate and intellectual discourse. With roots tracing back to the
dawn of modern legal systems, the doctrine of strict liability represents a unique paradigm,
one that transcends the traditional fault-based approach that characterizes the majority of tort
claims. As we delve into the complex realm of strict liability, this paper aims to provide a
comprehensive exploration of the principles, historical evolution, contemporary applications,
and pivotal implications of this intriguing facet of Law of Torts.

Law of Torts, by its nature, seeks to allocate responsibility and remedy harm that arises from
wrongful acts or omissions. While negligence is the linchpin of many tort claims, strict
liability carves its own niche by imposing liability on a party without the need to establish
fault or intent. In doing so, it raises profound questions about fairness, risk allocation, and the
balance between individual rights and societal interests.

This paper will unravel the multifaceted nature of strict liability, tracing its historical
underpinnings, examining its place in the modern legal landscape, and assessing the
advantages and drawbacks of this framework. Through a judicious analysis of landmark cases
and scholarly perspectives, we will aim to offer a nuanced understanding of the complexities
surrounding strict liability, shedding light on its role in safeguarding public safety, promoting
economic efficiency, and ensuring justice for victims.

In the quest for a holistic comprehension of strict liability, this paper encourages readers to
explore the intricate web of legal principles, precedents, and societal considerations that
intersect within this intriguing sphere of Law of Torts. By dissecting its applications,
limitations, and broader implications, we hope to contribute to the ongoing discourse about
the ever-evolving realm of Law of Torts and its indispensable role in upholding justice and
order in society.

6
 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

The concept of strict liability in Law of Torts is deeply rooted in the evolution of legal
systems and the shifting dynamics of societal needs and expectations. Its historical journey
can be traced through various epochs, demonstrating how the principle of holding individuals
or entities liable for certain actions, regardless of fault or intent, has adapted over time.

1. Ancient Roots: Strict liability, in its earliest form, can be found in ancient legal
systems, such as the Code of Hammurabi in Babylon (circa 1754 BCE). Under these
codes, individuals who caused harm, even unintentionally, were held responsible for
their actions. This early manifestation of strict liability aimed to provide
compensation to victims and maintain order in society.

2. English Common Law: In medieval England, the common law system began to take
shape, and with it, the concept of strict liability continued to evolve. Early English
Law of Torts recognized certain inherently dangerous activities, such as keeping wild
animals, as imposing strict liability on their owners. The seminal case of Rylands v.
Fletcher (1868) further solidified the principle of strict liability in cases involving
hazardous activities and dangerous substances. This case introduced the "escape
doctrine," which held that liability arises when a substance escapes from a defendant's
land and causes harm to others, regardless of the defendant's fault.

3. Industrial Revolution and Expanding Liability : The Industrial Revolution of the

18th and 19th centuries brought about significant changes in society, giving rise to
new sources of harm and injury. As industrialization advanced, the need for stricter
liability standards became evident. Courts began to apply strict liability principles in
cases involving product defects, such as the landmark case of MacPherson v. Buick
Motor Co. (1916). This shift reflected the changing dynamics of a more complex and
interconnected world.

4. Development of Product Liability: The mid-20th century witnessed a notable

expansion of strict liability in the context of product liability. The influential case of

7
 Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1963) in California emphasized the need to hold
manufacturers and sellers accountable for defective products that caused harm to
consumers. Strict product liability, which required no showing of negligence, became
a prominent feature of modern Law of Torts.

5. Modern Applications: In contemporary legal systems, strict liability continues to

play a significant role, particularly in areas such as environmental law, animal
liability, and abnormally dangerous activities. Courts and legislatures have refined
and adapted the doctrine to address the complex challenges of the 21st century.

This historical overview of strict liability in Law of Torts underscores its dynamic evolution,
from its ancient origins to its current relevance. As legal systems adapt to the changing needs
of society, the concept of strict liability remains a crucial tool for allocating responsibility,
protecting the rights of victims, and ensuring the safety and well-being of the public. This
evolution will be further examined in the context of modern Law of Torts, assessing its
applications and challenges in our contemporary legal landscape.

8
 THE DOCTRINE OF STRICT LIABILITY

Legal doctrine known as "strict liability" is applicable to some crimes and certain tort
proceedings (claims made to obtain compensation after an injury). Defendants may be held
accountable for the results of their conduct when strict liability laws are in effect, regardless
of whether they acted carelessly or purposefully.

Another name for strict liability is absolute liability. According to a legal philosophy, a
defendant's intention is irrelevant when deciding whether to hold him accountable for a crime
he committed or whether to require him to pay damages to victims of personal injury claims.

In strict responsibility instances, it does not matter if the defendant behaved carelessly or
negligently. Strict liability laws mean that even a careful and sensible person can still be held
accountable for the outcomes.

Strict liability is distinct from purposeful or careless torts, as well as from intent crimes.
Although it is still necessary for prosecutors or plaintiffs to demonstrate that defendants
committed a crime or tort. Proving a strict liability claim may be simpler because it does not
require demonstrating the defendant's mental state or how their actions relate to those of a
reasonably sensible person. Only needs to be proven is the crime or tort that had happened.

In the Rylands v. Fletcher case, the defendant used an independent contractor to build a
reservoir. The contractors neglected to notice the old, abandoned shafts beneath the reservoir
site and chose not to block them. Upon filling the reservoir, the water burst through the shafts
and flooded the coal mines owned by the plaintiff on the adjacent land. Despite not being
careless and being unaware of the shaft, the defendant was nevertheless found accountable.
This type of liability is also known as "no fault." The recognized liability in the case at hand
was "strict liability," which means that even in the absence of negligence or intentional harm,
the defendant may still be held accountable under the law. Despite the defendant's lack of
negligence, the court nonetheless found the defendant liable. The rule was created by Justice
Blackburn and states that anyone who brings, keeps, or collects anything that is not naturally

9
present on their land and allows it to escape will be held accountable for the results. He might
not have even been at fault for the thing's escape. It's his thing to keep at his own risk.

ESSENTIALS OF STRICT LIABILITY

1. Dangerous Things: The land must have been used by the defendant in a way that was
not typical or unusual and that increased the risk to others. This rule states that the one
is only liable for something that escapes from their property if it was a dangerous
item. The large body of water (reservoir) was the object of the Rylands v. Fletcher
case. The rule also applies to explosives, gas, electricity, vibration, and sewage.

2. Escape: The potentially harmful thing or element that the defendant brought or kept
on their land must escape from their area of control. In order for the Rylands v.
Fletcher rule to be applicable, the object causing the damage must also be able to
escape to an area that is not under the defendant's control or occupation. The Read v.
Lyons and Co. case serves as an illustration of no escape and consequently no
liability. The plaintiff in this case was an employee of the defendant's ammunition
factory. She was hurt when a shell that was being manufactured there exploded while
she was there on the job. There was no proof of the defendant's negligence. Because
nothing could escape from the defendant's property, it was decided that the defendant
was not liable.

3. Non Natural Use of Land: For the defendant to be held accountable, the land must
be used in a non-natural manner. Large-scale water collection is regarded as a non-
natural use of land, similar to the Rylands v. Fletcher case. According to the ruling in
Sochacki v. Sas, having a fire place is a natural use of land. Because there was no non-
natural use of the land, the defendants were not held liable even if the plaintiff was
harmed in the event that the fire escapes from the fire place.

10
 Exceptions to the rule of Strict Liability

As time has passed by, the rule declared in 1868 has seen many changes and reprieves. Here
some of the exceptions to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher that have been observed throughout
the years:

1. Plaintiff’s own fault: If the plaintiff suffers damage due to his own interference or
interception into the defendant’s property then the defendant shall not be liable under the
strict liability. The previously mentioned case of Ponting v. Noakes is an excellent illustration
of this exception.

2. Act of God: In Tennent v. Earl of Glasgow, an Act of God or vis major was defined as –
"Circumstances which no human foresight can provide against, and of which human
prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility."
If the escape of a dangerous thing or the thing itself becomes hazardous and causes damage
due to unforeseen circumstances like an epidemic, flood, earthquake, typhoon, landslide, etc.,
the defence of Act of God can be pleaded.

In Nichols v. Marsland,
A man dammed up all the water streams on his land to make artificial lakes for his own use.
An unforeseen amount of rain was observed in that year which caused the lakes to overflow
breaking the embankments. This rush of water destroyed the plaintiff’s four bridges. It was
held that the defendant was not liable under the rule of Strict Liability as the damages were
caused by an Act of God.

However, in S.K. Shangrung Lamkang v. State of Manipur,

Two persons had died due to electrocution caused by an electric wire due to a storm and hit
the two persons who were riding on a scooter. The wires had come off due to a lightning
storm in that area.The defendants argued that the wires had come off due to the intensity of

11
the storm and pleaded Act of God as their defence.The Guwahati High Court, however, held
the defendants liable for negligence by elaborating that-

“The possibility of falling off high tension electric wire from its pole as a result of storm or
lightning should have been reasonably anticipated by the respondents and as such
appropriate steps should have been taken by them so that no harm was caused to when
touched the fallen electric line”
There could be no defence of an Act of God in this case.

3. Consent of the plaintiff: The defence of Volenti non fit injuria can be claimed if the
plaintiff had consented to the accumulation of a dangerous thing on the defendant’s land.
Such consent is implied when the source of danger serves a common benefit. If a water tank
is constructed above a building for common use, any damage caused by an escape of water or
crumbling of the tank will not be actionable as it was constructed for “common benefit”- As
in Carstair v. Taylor
In North-Western Utilities v. London Guarantee,
The residents living near and making use of any public utility undertaking such as gas or
waterfall under “common benefit” and therefore, in case of damages, cannot make the
defendant liable (if he wasn’t negligent) under this rule.

4. Act of a third party: If the damages are caused by an act of a stranger i.e. a person who is
neither the defendant’s servant nor a known acquaintance, the defendant will not be liable
under the rule of Strict Liability. However, the act of a stranger should be unforeseeable,
unpredictable, or an anomaly.
That is why, the defendant in Box v. Jabb when a few strangers had blocked the drainage of
the reservoir resulting in its overflow causing damage to adjacent properties, was not held
liable under this rule.
In M.P Electric Board v. Shall Kumar, it was held that if an accident was caused due to an
unforeseeable act of a stranger, the rule of strict liability could not apply to the defendant.

In most cases involving Electrical Boards and other statutory bodies, the Indian Courts have
usually awarded compensations on the grounds of negligence. They are not willing to

12
concede grievous harm caused by the grids and wires to the public at large without holding
the defendants (electricity boards and their contractors) liable.

5. Statutory Authority: This one’s pretty simple really. One simply cannot be held liable
under the rule of Strict Liability if his actions were ordered by the authority of a Statute,
provided there was no negligence on the part of the actor.

In Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Co., the defendants had a statutory duty to maintain a steady
supply of water. In due process of the operation and without any negligence on the
company’s part, a few pipes burst and caused damage to the plaintiff’s premises nearby. The
Company was not held liable for any damages as they had been ordered by statutory authority
to do so.

13
 CONCLUSION

In the intricate world of Law of Torts, the doctrine of strict liability stands as a fascinating
and evolving concept that has traversed centuries, adapting to the changing dynamics of
human society and commerce. This paper has endeavoured to shed light on the historical
evolution, contemporary applications, and overarching implications of strict liability,
demonstrating its enduring significance as a cornerstone of modern Law of Torts.

The historical journey of strict liability reveals a pattern of development that mirrors society's
shifting values and priorities. From its ancient origins as a means of ensuring order and
compensation in the face of harm to its crystallization in landmark cases like Rylands v.
Fletcher and Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, the concept of holding individuals and
entities responsible for certain actions, irrespective of their fault, has demonstrated its
resilience and adaptability.

In the modern era, strict liability continues to serve as a crucial tool in safeguarding public
safety, consumer rights, and environmental protection. It allows for the efficient allocation of
responsibility in cases involving inherently dangerous activities, defective products, and
environmental harm. This framework helps ensure that victims receive compensation and that
entities engaging in risky or potentially harmful endeavors are incentivized to take the
necessary precautions.

However, as with any legal doctrine, strict liability is not without its challenges and
controversies. Critics argue that it may stifle innovation, lead to over-litigation, or impose
unfair burdens on certain defendants. Striking the right balance between protecting victims
and fostering economic growth remains an ongoing debate in legal circles.

As we conclude this exploration of strict liability in Law of Torts, it becomes evident that this
doctrine is an indispensable part of the legal landscape. It represents a careful equilibrium
between individual rights and societal interests, offering a mechanism for redress,
accountability, and the promotion of safety. Its continued evolution will depend on the ability
of legal systems to adapt to the ever-changing challenges of the modern world.

14
In essence, strict liability is a testament to the dynamic nature of Law of Torts, where
tradition and progress coexist. It is an enduring reminder that the law is a reflection of
society's values and concerns, and as such, it will continue to evolve to meet the needs and
expectations of future generations. Through a thorough understanding of strict liability, we
can navigate the complexities of this doctrine and contribute to the ongoing dialogue about
the delicate balance between individual rights and the greater good in the realm of Law of
Torts.

15
 REFERENCES

 https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_liability#:~:text=In%20both%20tort%20and
%20criminal,examples%20of%20strict%20liability%20offenses.
 https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/strict-liability/
 https://www.cloudlex.com/glossary/what-is-strict-liability/
 https://www.toppr.com/guides/legal-aptitude/law-of-torts/the-rule-of-strict-liability/
 https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-10389-the-principle-of-strict-liability-
under-the-law-of-tort.html
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/concept-strict-liability-absolute-liability/
 https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4532-liability-strict-liability-absolute-
liability-and-vicarious-liability-under-law-of-tort.html
 https://www.sargonlawgroup.com/what-is-a-strict-liability-tort/
 https://study.com/academy/lesson/strict-liability-torts-definition-and-examples.html

16