Article on "Analysis of the rule of Strict and Absolute liability" by Khushboo Rajput

By KHUSHBOO RAJPUT

COURSE- BBALLB               

YEAR- 3^RD YEAR, 5^TH SEMESTER.

              COLLEGE NAME – DELHI METROPOLITAN EDUCATION. 

           

Analysis of the rule of Strict and Absolute  liability.

 

·     Rule of Strict Liability :

“Under the strict liability rule, the law makes people to pay compensation for damages even if they are not at fault. In other words, people have to pay compensation to victims even if they took all the necessary precautions.”

 

Land mark case for strict liability :

Rylands V. Fletcher – “According to the facts of this case, the defendant owned a mill and wanted to improve its water supply. For this purpose, he employed a firm of reputed engineers to construct a reservoir nearby. The problem occurred when the reservoir was so full one day that the water from it started over-flowing. The water flowed with so much force that it entered the plaintiff’s mine and damaged everything. The engineers, who were independent contractors of the defendant, were clearly at fault. This is because they were negligent in constructing the reservoir. This is exactly what the defendant also said for avoiding his liability.”

The court, however, disagreed and explained the strict liability rule. It said that when somebody keeps something on his property for his benefit, it should not escape and affect others. In case it so escapes, the owner of that thing must compensate the victim even if he was not negligent.

ESSENTIALS  :

1.      Dangerous substances.

The defendant will be strictly held liable only if any dangerous substance escapes from his premises.

2.      Non – natural use.

Like some other rules and sections this rule too has its exception and that is –

1.      Act of God :

An act of god is natural and beyond the control of humans and nobody can reasonably prepare for. For example – earthquake , tsunami , extraordinary rainfall etc.

2.      Wrongful act of a third party :

Sometimes involvement of the third party can cause the damage. For example -  in the case of Box V. Jubb , where the reservoir of the defendant overflowed because a third party emptied his drain through the defendant’s reservoir, the Court held that the defendant wouldn’t be liable.

3.      Plaintiff ‘s own 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.

4.      Consent of plaintiff :

Also known as volenti non fit injuria , in this the defendant will not be held liable as there is a consent of plaintiff itself.

Analysis – “According to this rule if defendant chose to bring any hazardous or dangerous thing to his place, then, only he will be liable for any damages caused. If that thing escapes from his premises he will be prima facie answerable to the damage caused by its escape even though he had not been negligible to keep that. The liability arises because he kept some dangerous thing on his land. Since in such case liability arises even without any negligence on the defendant part, it is known as strict liability. Based on this principle, there were certain qualifications which need to be fulfilled to decide whether strict liability arises or not.”

 

Rule of Absolute Liability :

“The rule of absolute liability, in simple words defined as strict liability minus exception.” In this rule the company or industry cannot defend themselves by saying that they took all the reasonable care if the damage is caused they are to be held liable.

Essentials :

1.      Dangerous thing.

2.      Escape.

3.      Non - natural use of land.

Landmark case :

MC Mehta V. Union of India -  “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.”

Rules for absolute liability :

1.      Dangerous or inherently dangerous activity.

A company should indulge itself in the hazardous or dangerous activities.

2.      Escape not necessary.

In absolute liability it is not necessary that there should be escape of hazardous thing outside the premises, the company can be held liable if damage is caused within the premises.

3.      No exception.

There is no exception in the rule of absolute liability if the damage is caused within or outside the premises the company should be held liable.

4.      Apply to both natural and non – natural use of land.

If a person uses a dangerous substance which may be natural use of land & if such substance escapes, he shall be held liable even though he has taken proper care.

5.      Extent of damages.

The extent of damages depends on the magnitude and financial capability of the institute.

Bhopal gas tragedy:

On the night of December 2, 1984, chemical, methyl isocyanate (MIC) spilt out from Union Carbide India Ltd’s (UCIL’s) pesticide factory turned the city of Bhopal into a colossal gas chamber. It was India's first major industrial disaster. At least 30 tonnes of methyl isocyanate gas killed more than 15,000 people and affected over 600,000 workers. Bhopal gas tragedy is known as world's worst industrial disaster.

After this tragedy the Supreme Court of India laid down the concept of strict liability and introduces absolute liability i.e. strict liability without any exceptions

Analysis – “The law so laid by the English govt. in case of Rylands v. Fletcher was justifiable according to the demands of law at that time. But it is not necessary or binding to the Indian government to strictly follow the rule so laid in the late 19th century because in the modern industrial society with highly developed scientific knowledge and technology, where it is necessary to run hazardous or inherently dangerous industries as a part of the development programme. This rule was laid in the 19th century when this type of development in science and technology has not taken place as compared to today’s economy and social structure. Law needs to be kept changing according to the needs of the society and evolving social structure. Law cannot afford to remain static. We need to evolve new principles and laid down new and amended rules which could adequately deal with the problems of a new and industrialised economy. We cannot allow judicial thinking to be restricted to the laws laid down in England or any other country. Therefore, the principle of absolute liability was laid down.”

My point of view:

According to me, the rule of absolute liability is absolutely correct for the today’s world where everyone is heading towards development irrespective to the consequences which may occurred by their negligence while using dangerous or hazardous things. It’s the duty of government to look after this that such industries or factories that  uses such kind of hazardous thing should not be surrounded by the residential area. We have witnessed cases like Bhopal gas leak case which opened the eyes of government and the people. The companies or industries should be very careful while working with such kind of dangerous things and should ensure the safety of the employees as well as the society. It should be the responsibility, firstly,   of the government to allow such industries work away from residential area and , secondly, of the company to ensure that they take all the necessary precautions for their workers as well as for society. No doubt,  in case of negligence, such company should be held liable for the damages caused. Hence, the concept of rule of strict and absolute liability is beneficial. Workers working between such hazardous things should also take precautions while working.