Strict Liability

The principle of strict liability emerged in the case of Rylands v Fletcher. In the year 1868, a strict liability stated that anyone keeping dangerous items on their premises would be prosecuted if those items fled the area and caused any damage. According to the facts of the case, X had a mill in his country, and to provide the power to grind, X built a dam on his land. As a result of the accident, water from the lake overflowed into the Y-coal mines. Subsequently, Y filed a complaint against X. The Court held that the defendant constructed the pool at the own risk, and, in the event of an accident, the defendant would be liable for the accident and forfeiture.

According to the principle set out in this case, it can be said that if a person brings his land and keeps something dangerous, and such a thing is likely to cause some damage if it escapes then that person will answer for the damage caused. The person who fled the substance from the property will be prosecuted even though he or she has not been negligent in keeping the item on his or her premises. The debt is not placed on him, not on his negligence, but on what is kept in his place. In line with this proclamation of judgment, the idea of ​​ strict liability arose. There are certain important conditions that must be met in order to separate the liability under the head of a strict liability.

The exception to the Rule of Strict Liability

• Plaintiff’s Fault: If the plaintiff was at fault and any damage was caused, the defendant could not be held liable, as the plaintiff himself encountered a dangerous object. In the proclamation of the judgment of Ponting v Noakes, the plaintiff’s horse died after entering the defendant’s place and ate the poisonous leaves. The Court held that it was an infallible entry, and the defendant should not have been charged with such loss.

• Act of God: The term “act of God” can be defined as the supreme act of any human organization. Such actions occur only for natural reasons and cannot be prevented even if you are aware and foresee. Defendant could not be liable for loss if the dangerous object escaped as a result of an unexpected and natural disaster that could not be controlled in any way.
• Act of Third Party: The law also does not apply when damages are caused by the action of a third party. The third party means that the person is not a servant of the defendant, and that the defendant has no agreement with them or controls on their activity. But where the actions of a third party can be identified, the defendant must take proper care. Otherwise, he will be charged. For example, in the case of Box v Jubb, in which the defendant’s dam overflowed because a third person had drained his canal from the defendant’s dam, the Court held that the defendant would not be guilty.

• Plaintiff’s Consent: This exception follows the principle of violent non-injuria. For example, if A and B are neighbors, and they share the same water source on Land A, and if water escapes and causes damage to B, they cannot claim injury, as A will not be liable for damage.

Absolute Liability

In simple terms, Absolute Responsibility can be defined as a rule of strict liability minus the exception. In India, the rule of absolute liability came from the case of MC Mehta v Union of India. This is one of the most important judgments ever made.

The facts of the case are that some oleum gas is leaking somewhere in Delhi from the industry. As a result of the leak, many people are affected. The Apex court then reversed the law of absolute liability in the strict liability and ruled that the defendant would be liable for damages incurred without considering the exceptions to the strict liability.

According to the law of absolute liability, if any person commits any dangerous act, and if any injury is caused by any person as a result of an accident that occurred during the course of this dangerous activity, that person shall be fully liable. Without strict liability it would also not be considered. The decision in the case of MC Mehta v UOI was also followed by the Supreme Court ruling in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case. To ensure that victims of such accidents gain immediate relief through insurance, the Indian Legislature passed the Public Liability Insurance Act in 1991.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.

We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge