STRICT LIABILITY V. ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

Submitted to: Dr. Arun Nanda

Submitted by: Bindu kshtriya

Rylands vs Fletcher FactsFletcher (plaintiff) leased several underground coal mines from land adjacent to that owned by Rylands (defendant).

Rylands owned a mill, and built a reservoir on his land for the purpose of supplying water to that mill.

Rylands employed engineers and contractors to build the reservoir.

In the course of building the reservoir, these employees learned that it was being built on top of abandoned underground coal mines.

This fact was unknown by Rylands.When on duty the contractors came across some mine shafts that were no longer in use and which were loosely filled with marl and earth.

The contractors “made no attempt” to fix the shafts.

Continued…

These shafts led through a series of interconnected shafts and channels, into the plaintiff's (Fletcher) mines and land.

After completion, water burst and flooded into Fletcher's land and mines. In those circumstances, Thomas Fletcher sued John Rylands.

Justices in the lower court differed as to whether Rylands should be liable, and the decision was appealed to the Court of Exchequer Chamber.

There, Rylands was held strictly liable for damage caused to Fletcher’s property by water from the broken reservoir. Rylands appealed.

Court Of Exchequer Chamber

● The person who for his own purposes brings on his own lands 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 facia answerable for all the damages which is

the natural consequences of its escape.

● He can escape himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff's default; or perhaps that the escape

was the consequences of Act of God.

House Of LordsHe appealed to the House of Lords.

The House of Lords dismissed Ryland appeal. They agreed with the six exchequer judges but went further to add a limitation on the

liability.

Strict Liability From the proceedings of this case, there developed what is called “the strict liability” aimed at avoiding “misrepresentation of facts in a court of law”.

In our case, “the defendant's (Ryland) reservoir caused an old mine shaft owned by Fletcher to collapse”.It was proven in courts that “the defendants were not negligent” but still the judges ruled that “the defendants ought to pay damages to the plaintiff and they conformed”.

The case thus established doctrine of strict liability “but only in limited circumstances” which were stated by the judges.

Any person “wishing to rely on this doctrine has to fulfill certain requirements that were highlighted by the judges during this case”.

Definition: Strict Liability

Absolute legal responsibility for an injury that can be imposed on the wrongdoer without proof

of carelessness or fault.According to this, if a person brings on his land & keeps there any

dangerous thing, i.e. a thing which is likely to do mischief if it escapes, he will be prima facie answerable for the damages caused by its escape even though he had not been negligent in keeping it

there. Since in such a case the liability arises even without any negligence on the part of the defendant, it is known as the rule of

strict liability.

3 Essentials for the application of rule

1.Some dangerous thing must have been brought by a person on his land

2.The thing thus brought by a person on his land must escape

3.It must be non-natural use of land

Dangerous ThingThe liability for the escape of a thing from

one's land arises provided the things collected was a dangerous thing, I.e a thing likely to do mischief if it escapes.

Rylands vs Fletcher

The thing so collected was a large body of water.

The rule has also been applied to gas, electricity, vibrations, yew trees, sewage, flag pole,

explosives, noxious fumes, and rusty wire.

Escape● It is also essential that the thing causing the damage must must escape to the area

outside the occupation and control of defendant.

Examples● If there is a projection of branches of a poisonous tree on

the neighbor's land, this amounts to escape and if the cattle lawfully there on neighbor's land are poisoned by eating eating the leaves of same tree, the defendant will be liable under the rule.

● If the plaintiff's horse intrudes over the boundary and dies by nibbling the leaves of a poisonous tree there, the defendant can't be liable because there is no escape of vegetation in this case.

Read vs Lyons & Co.● The plaintiff was an employee in the defendants

ammunition factory. While she was performing her duties inside the defendant's premises , a shell, which was being manufactured there, exploded whereby she injured.

● There was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant. Even though the shell which had exploded a dangerous thing it was held that the defendant were not liable because there was no “escape” of the things outside the defendant's premises.

Non-natural Use of Land

● Water collected in the reservoir in such a huge quantity in Rylands v Fletcher was held to be non natural use of land.

● Keeping water fir ordinary domestic purpose is natural use

● For the use to be non natural, it must be something special use bringing with it increased danger to others, and must not merely by the ordinary use of land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of community.

Example of natural use of land

● Electric wiring in a house● Supply of gas in gas pipes in a dwelling

house● Water installation in a house

Act done by independent contractor

● Generally, an employer is not liable for the wrongful act done by the independent contractor. However, it is no defense to the application to this rule that the act causing damages had been done by independent contractor

● In Rylands case, the defendants were held liable even though they had got the job done from the independent contractor.

Exceptions to the rule1.Plaintiff’s own default2.Act of god3.Consent of the plaintiff4.Act of third party5.Statutory authority

Plaintiff's own default● Damages caused by escape due to plaintiff's own

default was considered to be a good defense in Rylands vs Fletcher case itself.

● If the plaintiff suffers damages by his own intrusion into he defendant's property, he can't complain for the damages so caused.

Act of god● “Circumstances which no human foresight can

provide against, and of which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility.”

● If the escape has been unforeseen and because of supernatural forces without any human intervention, the defense of act of god can be pleaded.

Consent of the plaintiff

In the case of volenti non fit injuria i.e where the plaintiff has consented to the accumulation of the dangerous things on the defendant's land, the liability does not arise.

Act of third partyIf the harm has been caused due to the fact

of a stranger, who is neither the defendant's servant nor the defendant has any control over him, the defendant will not be liable under this rule

Statutory AuthorityAn act done under the authority of a statute

is a defense to an action for tort. The defense is also available when the action is under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher Statutory authority, however can't be pleaded as a defense when there is a negligence.

Position in IndiaThe rule of Strict Liability is applicable as

much in India as in England. There has, however, been recognition of some deviation both ways, I.e, in the extension of the scope of the rule of strict liability as well as the limitation of its scope.

Absolute Liability(The rule in M.C Mehta v. Union of India)

In this, an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity & harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, is strictly or absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident.

In other words, absolute liability is strict liability without any exception. This liability standard has been laid down by the Indian Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India ( Oleum gas leak case)

The rule was summed in following words:

● Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous activity resulting, for example, in the escape of toxic gas, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any exception which operate vis-a-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher

Continued...● The court gave two reasons justifying the rule:1. That the enterprise carrying on such hazardous and

inherently dangerous activity for private profit has a social obligation to compensate those suffering therefrom, and it should absorb such loss as an item of overhead

2. The enterprise alone has the resources to discover and guard against such hazards and dangers.

Measure of Compensation Payable

● The court laid down that the measure of compensation payable should be correlated to the magnitude & capacity of the enterprise, so that the same can have the deterrent effect.

● The larger and more prosperous the enterprise, greater must be the amount of compensation payable by it for the harm caused on the account of an accident in the carrying on the hazardous or inherently activity by the enterprise.

The Bhopal gas leak disaster case

On the night of Dec 2/3, 1984, a mass disaster , the worst in recent times, was caused by the leakage of Methyl Isocyanate and other toxic gases from a plant set up by UCIL for the manufacture of pesticides in Bhopal.

The disaster resulted in the death of at least 3,000 person and serious injuries to a very large no. Of others, permanently affecting the eyes, respiratory system, including damage to the foetuses of pregnant women.

there was efforts for an out of court settlement between GOI and UCC but that failed

Continued..GOI then proclaimed an ordinance, and thereafter passed “ THE BHOPAL GAS LEAK DISASTER ACT, 1985”

Under section 3 of act, UOI filed a suit on the behalf of claimants against UCC in US District Court of New York.

But all the suits were superseded.

UCC pleaded for the dismissal of suit an the ground of “Forum non conveniens”

After the dismissal of suit in U.S.A. , UOI filed a suit in District court of Bhopal.

Continued..District court ordered UCC to pay interim relief of Rs 350 crores to the gas victims.

Madhya Pradesh High Court reduced the interim compensation to 250 crores.

there was report that UCC was also trying to negotiate with UOI for an out of court settlement.

Continued..so far as the legal position of the case is concerned , the Supreme Court laid down the rule of “ Absolute Liability” in preference to the rule of Strict Liability, therefore , could not escape the liability on the ground of SABOTAGE.

Principle laid down by SC in M.C. Mehta case

Where an enterprise is engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident. in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for example, in the escape of toxic gas, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exception which operate vis a vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule Rylands v. Fletcher

Oleum Gas CaseM.C. Mehta and Another v. Union of India and others.

On the question of liability of an enterprise engaged in hazardous activities, that an enterprise which is engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and an industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and of those residing in the surrounding area owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to any one on account of an hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken.

SC took a bold initiative and evolved the concept of ‘Absolute Liability’

Thank you…