Strict liablity

  A person may be liable for some harm even though he is not negligent in causing the same or does not intentionally cause it or is careful or has taken steps to prevent the same.

The defendant is liable to the neighbor for emission of harmful gases with offensive smell from his big ore melting furnace, or constructing a dam which diverted water from its natural channel on the land of the neighbour. Such liability is called Strict Liability.

The Strict Liability principle is also called as ‘No Fault Liability’. This is contradictory to the general principle of negligence in torts where a person can be held liable for commission of a tort only when the plaintiff can prove negligence on his part and the defendant himself is unable to disprove it.

The strict principle of law is: sics utere tuo ut alienum non laedas; it means, everyone must so use his own as not to do damage to another. When this maxim is applied to landed property, it is necessary for the plaintiff to show not only that he has sustained damage but also that the defendant has caused it by going beyond what is necessary in order to enable him to have the natural use of his own land.

Facts of the case: RYLAND VS FLETCHER

  The water reservoir case: Fletcher was working in a coal mine under a lease. On the neighboring land, Rylands desired to erect a reservoir for storing water, and for this purpose, he employed a competent independent contractor whose workmen, while excavating the soil, discovered some disused shafts and passages communicating with old workings and the mine in the adjoining land. The shafts and passages had been filled with loose earth and rubbish. The contractor did not take the trouble to pack these shafts and passages with earth, so as to bear pressure of water in the reservoir, when it is filled. Shortly after the construction of the reservoir, whilst it was partly filled with water, the vertical shafts gave way and burst downwards. The consequence was that the water flooded the old passages and also the plaintiff’s mine, so that the mine could not be worked. The plaintiff sued for damages. No negligence on the part of the defendant was proved. The only question was whether the defendant would be liable for the negligence of the independent contractor who was admittedly a competent engineer. The Court held that the question of negligence was quite immaterial. The defendant, in bringing water into the reservoir, was bound to keep it there at his peril, and was, therefore, liable.

JUDGEMENT

The court of Exchequer dismissed the claim stating that there is no valid case.

The court of Exchequer chamber again overruled the judgment in the favor of the Plaintiff and the judgment was announced by Blackburn J. on the behalf of all the six judges and gave the rule of strict liability.“The person who, for his own purpose , brings on his land and collects andkeeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in athis peril ; and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all damagewhich is the natural consequence of it’s escape”.

Rylands was not satisfied with this decision and appealed in the House of lords and the appeal was again overruled by Lord Crains, he agreed to the decision of Blackburn J, and added a condition that the land from which escape has occurred must have been used in a NON-NATURAL, inappropriate or unusual manner.

A person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there, anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in and at his peril; and if he does so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. This is known as the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (also known as “the wild beast theory”.

ESSENTIALS

1. Some Inherently dangerous thing must have been bought by the person oh his land.

2. That thing must ESCAPE from the land.

3. It must be a NON–NATURAL use of land.

1. Dangerous Thing: According to the above mentioned rule, the liability of escape of a thing from a person’s land will arise only when the thing or substance collected is a dangerous thing i.e. a thing which is likely to cause mischief or damage to other people in person or their property on its escape. In various torts cases filed worldwide, the ones involving the doctrine of strict liability have held “large body of water, gas, electricity, vibrations, yew trees, sewage, flag-pole, explosives, noxious fumes, rusty wires, etc. as dangerous things.
2. Escape: The thing that has caused damage or mischief must ‘escape’ from the area under the occupation and control of the defendant. This can be better explained by bringing in two examples-

Crowhurst vs.Amersham Burial Board, Cheater vs. Cater,If the branches of a poisonous tree that is planted on the defendant’s land spreads out to the neighbouring plaintiff’s land, this amounts to the escape of that dangerous, poisonous thing from the boundaries or control of the defendant and onto the plaintiff’s land. Now, the issue arises, if the cattle of the plaintiff nibbles on these leaves, then the defendant will be held liable under the mentioned rule even when nothing was done intentionally on his part.

3.Non–natural use of land: Water collected on land for domestic purposes does not amount to non-natural use of land but storing it in huge quantity like that in a reservoir amounts to non-natural use of the land (Rylands vs. Fletcher). This distinction between natural and non-natural use of land can be made possible by its adjustment to existing social conditions. Growing of trees is held natural use of land but if the defendant is found to grow trees of poisonous nature on his land, then it is non-natural use of the land. If the land has been used naturally yet a conflict has risen between the defendant and the plaintiff, owing to natural use of land, the court will not hold the defendant liable.

4.Mischief: To make the defendant liable under the doctrine of strict liability, the plaintiff needs to prove that the defendant made non-natural use of his land and escape of the dangerous thing caused mischief/damage to him. The resultant damage needs to be shown by the plaintiff after successfully proving that unnatural use of the land was done by the defendant.

In Charing Cross Electric Supply Co. vs. Hydraulic Power Co. (1914), the defendants’ duty was to supply water for industrial works but they were unable to keep their mains charged with the minimum required pressure which led to the bursting of the pipe line at four different places resulting in heavy damage to the plaintiff which was proved with evidence. The defendants’ were held liable in spite of no fault of theirs.

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.