DOCTRINE OF STRICT AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY UNDER LAW of TORT
By Nagam Dakshayani
BBA LLB, 4th year
Lovely Professional University
INTRODUCTION
In
the year 1868, the doctrine of strict liability stated that any person who
keeps hazardous substance on his or her premises will be held liable if such
substances escape the premises and causes any damage. It have been evolved in
the case of Ryland's v Fletches. Whereas the doctrine of absolute liability
have evolved in India in 1987 by the case of mc Mehta v union of India in
supreme court of India. This case is based on the doctrine of strict liability
but were with no exception were given and the individual is made absolute
liable for his or her acts. Strict liability was inherently embedded in
absolute liability. The plaintiff merely needs to show that the tort happened
and that the defendant was to liable in strict liability. Strict liability is a
type of tort in which a person or entity is held liable for their actions even
if the consequences were unintended. Only those conduct that the law deems to
be naturally harmful are subject to liability. No-fault liability is another
term for strict liability. It's because of the immateriality of desire and
recklessness. The public liability insurance act of 1991 was enacted as a
"next step" in the process of giving the principle of absolute liability
in India a solid foundation and explanation.
STRICT
LIABILITY:
In
the case of Ryland vs. Fletcher, the rule of strict liability was first
acknowledged. In this case, the house of lords established the rule that a
person who accumulates on his land anything likely to cause harm if it escapes
is liable for infringing with another's use of his land as a result of the thing
escaping from his land. The Ryland v. Fletcher rule states that if a
person allows a harmful substance on their property and it escapes and causing
harm to the surrounding people, the person who carried the substance is
responsible for the damage.
RYLAND
VS FLETCHER[1]:
Facts:
Ryland
and Fletcher were two individuals that lives near to each other. Fletcher owned
a mill and built a water reservoir on his property to meet the mill's energy
needs. He had engaged the services of independent contractors and engineers to
complete the project. There were ancient unused shafts beneath the reservoir
site that the engineers were unaware of and hence did not block. When the
reservoir was filled with water, the shafts leading to Ryland's property burst
due to the contractors' incompetence. Ryland suffered significant damage and
loss as a result of the water entering his coal mine. Ryland then filed a
lawsuit against Fletcher.
Strict
liability is used when harm arises as a result of the failure of any reasonable
action that is unexpected, remarkable, or improper in terms of its mode and
place of use. Taking the criteria mentioned in the chamber and the house of
lords into account, we can conclude that for an act to amount to strict
liability, the following preconditions must be met:
1. The
person has brought something onto their property.
2. On
the land, the individual has created a 'non-natural' use of such an object.
3. The
thing was such that if it escaped from the said land, it would be a nuisance.
4. Due
to its non-natural use on the earth, the object did escape and caused damage
and consequences[2].
ESSENTIAL
OF STRICT LIABILITY
Substance
that is dangerous:
The
existence of a hazardous thing/item/object on the land is the first criterion
for this principle to apply. According to the principle, any item that can
escape from the land and is likely to cause harm to another person or property
is classified as a 'dangerous thing.'
Any
substance that can cause harm to others if it escapes, such as gases,
explosives, chemicals, and so on, would be regarded dangerous.
Escape:
The
escape of such a harmful product from the land where it is introduced would be
the second requirement for an act or action. The harmful substance should leave
the individual's premises and escape from its containment, posing a threat to
another person or property. However, if the item escapes and the plaintiff
suffers harm as a result of their own carelessness, the person who owns such a
dangerous item is not held accountable.
Read
was an employee of the defendant corporation, which was an ammunition
manufacturing company, in the case of read v. Lyons and co[3].
A shell created by the company burst while she was working, injuring her
severely. The defendant was found not liable since the dangerous item did
not escape the defendant's premises, and so the principle did not apply in this
case.
Non-
natural use of land
A
non-natural use of the land is required to establish strict liability. The
water gathered in the reservoir was ruled a non-natural use of the land in the
decision of Fletcher v.
Ryland's Natural use refers to water storage for personal use. However, the
court ruled that holding water for the purpose of energizing a mill was not
natural. When considering the term "non-natural," keep in mind that
there must be some specific use that increases the hazard to others. Natural
uses of land include the supply of cooking gas through pipeline, electric
wiring in a home, and so on.
EXCEPTION
TO THE STRICT LIABILITY
There
are a few exceptions to the strict liability rule:
Act
of god:
An event that is beyond the control of any human agency is referred to as "Act of god." such activities occur solely as a result of natural causes and cannot be stopped, even with extreme precaution and foresight[4]. If the harmful substance escapes due to an unforeseeable and natural incident that could not have been controlled in any way, the defendant would not be liable for the loss.
Plaintiff's
fault:
'Volenti
non-fit injuria,' a word commonly associated with tort law, is also a genuine
and widely accepted exemption to strict liability. It indicates that if a
plaintiff freely participates in a dangerous and risky behavior, the plaintiff cannot
claim the defendant if any damage occurs as a result of such act. For example,
if the plaintiff and defendant are neighbors who share a water source on the
defendant's property and the plaintiff suffers damage as a result of that The
defendant cannot be held liable in court because of a common source because the
plaintiff consented to and actively participated in the use of that common
water source on the defendant's property[5].
Act
of a third-party:
If
the plaintiff suffers damage as a result of the defendant's negligence but as a
result of a third party who was neither the defendant's servant nor related to
the defendant, the defendant will not be held liable. As in a situation where
water from the defendant's reservoir overflowed, causing damage to the
plaintiff. It was discovered that the overflow occurred as a result of a
stranger, i.e., a third party, blocking the drain. Under the strict liability
rule, the defendant was not held guilty."
Plaintiff's
consent:
If the plaintiff has willingly consented to accept the harm for the mutual advantage of both, the defendant will not be held liable. That is, if the plaintiff freely consented to the installation of such a dangerous object on the defendant's property, the defendant will not be held liable for the plaintiff's damage. In one case, there was a two-story building with the plaintiff acquiring the bottom floor and the defendant acquiring the first floor. A leak from the upper floor of the building occurred, which both the plaintiff and defendant agreed to store. The defendant was not to blame for the leak.
DOCTRINE
OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY:
Absolute
liability, the second premise of tort law's 'no-fault liability' concept, makes
the individual totally accountable for actions caused by the escape of a harmful
object in the non-natural use of land, without exception. The law of strict
liability was thought to be established and concrete until the Bhopal gas leak
disaster in India in the 1980s, when the subject of strict liability exceptions
arose. The supreme court of India finally formed an offshoot of the idea of
strict liability, known as absolute liability, in an unrelated case of the Oleum
gas leak, providing the defendant no defence or exception to avoid such
liability.
M.C
MEHTA V.UNION OF INDIA[6]
:
FACTS:
On
the fourth and sixth of December, 1985, a severe Oleum gas spill occurred in
one of shriram foods and fertilizers industries' units in Delhi, which was
linked with the Delhi cloth mills ltd. As a result of this, a backer honing at
the tis hazari court had died, and countless others had been affected. The
court received a writ appeal via method for open intrigue suit (PIL)."
ISSUES:
It was argued that if all of the tragedies
arising from the handling of massive production lines are subjected to strict
liability regulation, they will fall within the exemptions and be free of blame
for the harm they have caused as a result of their actions.
JUBGMENT:
The
court noted that this was the second large-scale spillage of a lethal gas in India
within a year, since more than 3000 people had died a year earlier as a result
of the spillage of gas from the union carbide facility in Bhopal, and lakhs
more had been exposed to various illnesses. Following that, the supreme court
devised a new rule – "absolute liability," authored by then-chairman
of the supreme court of India PN Bhagwati.
ESSENTIAL
OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY:
Damages
amount:
The
amount of damages is determined by the institute's size and financial
capability. The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to ensure
that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activities in which it is engaged
are conducted with the highest standards of safety and security, and if any
harm results as a result of such The enterprise/institute must be held
absolutely liable to compensate for any damage caused, and the enterprise must
not be given the option to claim that it did not.
Hazardous
or inherently dangerous activities:
under
the rule of absolute liability, if a person is engaged in an inherently
dangerous or hazardous activity and any harm is caused to another person as a
result of an accident that occurred while performing such an inherently
dangerous and hazardous activity, the person who is engaged in such activity
will be held absolutely liable.
Escape
not required:
It
is not required for a harmful thing to escape one's own land; it just means
that the law of absolute liability will apply to those hurt both within and
beyond the premises.
FINDINGS
There
are fewer provisions relating absolute and strict liability. There is no
evidence that the legislature has been negligent. Punishments for absolute and
strict responsibility are less severe.
SUGGESTIONS
There
should be additional absolute and strict liability restrictions. There should
be no lapses in the legislature's oversight. Punishments for absolute and
stringent liability should be increased.
CONCLUSION
:
