Strict and Absolute liability

Theoretical overview

 Strict liability is a kind of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant.

The principle of strict liability evolved in the case of Rylands vs. Fletcher. In the year 1868, the principle of strict liability states that any person who keeps hazardous substances on his premises will be held responsible if such substances escape the premises and causes any damage. 

According to this case, it can be said that if a person brings on his land and keeps some dangerous thing, and such a thing is likely to cause some damage if it escapes then such person will be held responsible for the damaged caused. The person from whose property such substance escaped will be held accountable even when he hasn’t been negligent in keeping the substance in his premises.

What are the essentials of strict liability?

For the application of the rule, the following three essentials should be there: –

1. Dangerous Things: – The strict liability for the escape of thing from one’s land arises only when the thing collected was a dangerous thing. In Rylands vs. Fletcher, the thing was large water body (reservoir). For the purpose of imposing strict liability, a dangerous substance can be defined as any substance which will cause some mischief or harm if it escapes. Things like explosives, toxic gasses, electricity, etc. can be termed as dangerous things.
2. Escape: – The dangerous thing bought must escape and cause damage. For the rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher to apply, it is also essential that the thing causing the damage must escape to the area outside the occupation and control of the defendant
3. Non-Natural Use of Land: – There should be non-natural use of land to make the defendant liable. Like in Rylands vs. Fletcher case, the water collected in the reservoir was considered to be a non-natural use of the land. Storage of water for domestic use is considered to be natural use. But storing water for the purpose of energizing a mill was considered non-natural by the Court. For instance, if the defendant lights up a fire in his fireplace and a spark escapes and causes a fire, the defendant will not be held liable as it was a natural use of the land.

Exceptions to the Rule of Strict Liability

The following exceptions to the rule have been recognised by Rylands v. Fletcher and some later cases: –

1. Act of God: – Any natural event which is not predictable, controllable or preventable, damage caused by such event cannot be held liable for. Such acts happen exclusively due to natural reasons and cannot be prevented even while exercising caution and foresight. The defendant wouldn’t be liable for the loss if the dangerous substance escaped because of some unforeseen and natural event which couldn’t have been controlled in any manner.
2. Consent of the Plaintiff: – If two persons with common consent bring any non-natural thing for the mutual benefit and such thing causes damage, either of them cannot claim damages from each other. When the plaintiff has consented to the accumulation of the dangerous thing on the defendant’s land, the liability under the rule does not arise. Such consent is implied where the source of danger is for the ‘common benefit’ of both the plaintiff and the defendant.
3. Act of Third Party: – The rule also doesn’t apply when the damage is caused due to the act of a third party, who is neither the defendant’s servant nor the defendant has any control over him, the defendant will not be liable under this rule. But where the acts of the third party can be foreseen, the defendant must take due care.
4. Statutory Authority: – An act done under the authority of State is a defence to an action for tort. The defence is also available when the action is under the rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher. Statutory authority however cannot be pleaded as a defence when there is negligence.
5. Plaintiff’s Own Default: – 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. If the plaintiff suffers damage by his own intrusion into the defendant’s property, he cannot complain for the damage so caused. 

Absolute liability

 Absolute liability is nothing but applying Strict Liability but without any exceptions of strict liability. The rule of absolute liability, in simple words, can be defined as the rule of strict liability minus the exception of strict liability. In India, the rule of absolute liability evolved in the case of MC Mehta vs. Union of India.

Important difference

1. In strict liability, any person can be made liable, whereas, in absolute liability, only an enterprise can be made liable.
2. In strict liability, the escape of a dangerous thing is necessary, whereas, in absolute liability, an enterprise can be made responsible even without an escape.
3. Certain exceptions are available to a person in strict liability, whereas no defences are available in absolute liability.

Important case laws

Bhopal Gas Tragedy

This rule was upheld in the infamous Bhopal Gas Tragedy which took place between the night of 2nd and 3rd December, 1984. Leakage of ‘Methyl Isocyanate’ poisonous gas from the Union Carbide Company in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh led to a major disaster. Over three thousand people lost their lives. There was heavy loss to property, flora and fauna. A case was filed in the American New York District Court as the Union Carbide Company in Bhopal was a branch of the US based Union Carbide Company. The case was dismissed owing to no jurisdiction. The Government of India enacted the Bhopal Gas Disaster Act, 1985 and sued the company for damages on behalf of the victims. The court applying the principle of Absolute Liability held the company liable and ordered it to pay compensation to victims.

 Rylands vs. Fletcher

the facts of the case, Fletcher had a mill on his land, and to power the mill, Fletcher built a reservoir on his land. Due to some accident, the water from the reservoir flooded the coal mines owned by Rylands. Subsequently, Rylands filed a suit against Fletcher. The Court held that the defendant built the reservoir at his risk, and in course of it, if any accident happens then the defendant will be liable for the accident and escape of the material.

According to this case, it can be said that if a person brings on his land and keeps some dangerous thing, and such a thing is likely to cause some damage if it escapes then such person will be held responsible for the damaged caused. The person from whose property such substance escaped will be held accountable even when he hasn’t been negligent in keeping the substance in his premises. The liability is imposed on him not because there is any negligence on his part, but the substance kept on his premises is hazardous and dangerous.

Nichols vs. Marsland (1876)

Facts of the case: – The defendant had some artificial lakes that he had formed by damming up a natural stream for several years. However, an extra-ordinary rainfall that year greater and more violent that any rainfall ever witnessed there broke the artificial embankments by the stream and the rushing water carried away with it four bridges of the plaintiff.

Judgment of the case: – In this case, the court held the defendant not liable as she was not negligent and this being an act of God was beyond her control.

Points to remember

• Strict liability is a kind of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant.
• Absolute liability is nothing but applying Strict Liability but without any exceptions of strict liability. The rule of absolute liability, in simple words, can be defined as the rule of strict liability minus the exception of strict liability.