LAW OF TORTS LAW OF TORTS PRESENTATIONPRESENTATION

TOPIC THE CONCEPT OF STRICT AND

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY:- A CRITIQUE. GROUP MEMBERS INDRANIL GHOSH(882022) NELIKA BHATTACHERJEE(882035)

LIABILITYLIABILITYThe state of being legally obliged and

responsible. An obligation that legally binds an

individual or company to settle a debt or settling a wrongful act they may have committed.

NO FAULT LIABILITYNO FAULT LIABILITY

Legal responsibility for an injury that can be imposed on the wrongdoer without proof of carelessness or fault.

NO FAULT NO FAULT LIABILITYLIABILITYSTRICT LIABILITYABSOLUTE LIABILITY

NO FAULT LIABILITY

STRICT LIABILITYSTRICT LIABILITY

Liability without fault. In civil law the concept applies where a person is liable despite the absence of fault or negligence.

The rule of Strict Liability has evolved from the rule laid down in Rylands v Fletcher(1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330.

Rylands v Fletcher(1868) L.R. 3 Rylands v Fletcher(1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330.H.L. 330.The defendant was a mill owner, and he employed some independent contractors who were apparently competent, to construct a reservoir on his land to provide water for his mill. In the course of work the contractors came upon some old shafts and passages on the defendant’s land. They communicated with the mines of the plaintiff, a neighbour of the defendant. The contractors did not block them up, and when the reservoir was filled the water from it burst through the old shafts and flooded the plaintiff’s mines. It was found as a fact that the defendant had not been negligent, although the contractors had been. But the House of Lords held the defendant liable.

“ the person who for his own purposes brings on his 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 facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff’s default ; or perhaps that the consequence was of vis major, or the act of god; but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient.”

JUDGMENT BY JUSTICE BLACKBURN

STRICT LIABILITY STRICT LIABILITY ESSENTIALS TO APPLY THE RULE LAID

DOWN BY LORD CRANWORTH:-

1. Some dangerous thing must have been brought in the land.

2. The thing must escape.3. It must be a non natural use of land.

DANGEROUS THINGDANGEROUS THING According to this rule, the liability for the

escape of a thing from one’s land provided the thing collected was a dangerous thing, a thing which is likely to do mischief if it escapes. In Rylands v Fletcher, the thing so collected was a large body of water. The water collected in the reservoir was of a huge quantity and was thus regarded to be of potential danger.

ESCAPEESCAPEIn Read v J. Lyons & Co Ltd(1946) 2 All E.R.

471. The claimant was employed by the Ministry of Supply as an inspector of munitions in the defendants’ munitions factory and, in the course of her employment there, was injured by the explosion of a shell that was being manufactured. It was admitted that high explosive shells were dangerous but the defendants were held not liable because “escape” of the thing should be from a place where the defendant had control and occupation of land to a place which is outside his occupation and control.

NON-NATURAL USENON-NATURAL USE

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 for ordinary domestic purposes is ‘natural-use’. For the use to be non-natural it must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others, and must not by the ordinary use of land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of community.

EXCEPTIONSEXCEPTIONS1. PLAINTIFF’S OWN FAULT.2. ACT OF GOD.3. CONSENT OF PLAINTIFF.4. ACT OF THIRD PARTY.5. STATUTORY AUTHORITY.

PLAINTIFF’S OWN FAULTPLAINTIFF’S OWN FAULTIf the damage is caused solely by the act or

default of the claimant himself, he has no remedy. In Rylands v Fletcher itself, this was noticed as a defence. If a person knows that there is a danger of his mine being flooded by his neighbour’s operations on adjacent land , and courts the danger by doing some act which renders the flooding probable he cannot complain. So too in Ponting v Noakes(1849) 2 Q.B. 281, the claimant’s horse reached over the defendant’s boundary, nibbled some poisonous tree there and died accordingly and it was held that the claimant could recover nothing, for the damage was due to the horse’s own intrusion and alternatively there had been no escape of vegetation.

ACT OF GODACT OF GODWhere the escape is caused directly by natural

causes in “circumstances which no human foresight can provide and of which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility”, the defence of Act of God applies.This was recognized by Blackburn J. in Rylands v Fletcher itself and was applied in Nichols v Marsland(1876) 2 Ex.. 1.. In this case the defendant was in possession of some artificial ornamental lakes formed up by damming up a natural stream. An extraordinary rainfall, “greater and more violent than any within the memory of the witnesses” broke down the artificial embankments and carried away four bridges in respect of which damage the claimant sued. Judgment was given for the defendant.

CONSENT OF PLAINTIFFCONSENT OF PLAINTIFF Where the claimant has expressly or

impliedly consented to the presence of the source of danger and there has been no negligence on the part of the defendant, the defendant is not liable.

Where the source of danger is maintained for the “common benefit” of both the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant is not liable for its escape.

CONSENT OF PLAINTIFFCONSENT OF PLAINTIFFIllustration:- If the plaintiff hired the ground floor of a

building from the defendant. The upper floor of the building was occupied by the defendant himself. Water stored on the upper floor leaked without any negligence on the part of the defendant and injured the plaintiff’s goods. As the water has been stored for the common benefit of both the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant was held not liable.

ACT OF THIRD PARTYACT OF THIRD PARTY

If the harm has been caused due to the act 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. Thus in Box v Jubb (1879) 4 Ex. D. 76 the overflow from the defendant’s reservoir was caused by the blocking of a drain by strangers, the defendant was held not liable for that.

STATUTORY AUTHORITYSTATUTORY AUTHORITYThe rule in Rylands v Fletcher may be

excluded by statute. Whether it is so or not is a question of construction of the particular statute concerned. In Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co (1894) 70 L.T. 547, for instance a main belonging to a water-works company, which was authorized by Parliament to lay the main, burst without any negligence on the part of the company and the claimant’s premises were flooded; the company was held not liable.

The Chelsea Waterworks Co were authorized by statute to lay mains and were under a statutory duty to maintain a continuous supply of water.

ABSOLUTE LIABILITYABSOLUTE LIABILITY

Strict liability without exceptions becomes Absolute Liability.

It is a liability independent of wrongful intent or of negligence.

Accepted in India its effect can be seen in Payment of Compensation in case of hazardous industries .

The burden of proof rests solely on the defendant.

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY AND ITS EVOLUTIONABSOLUTE LIABILITY AND ITS EVOLUTION Although the terms strict and absolute liability are used

synonymously in England yet the history of cases in Animal trespass and the judgment of Rylands v. Fletcher distinguished it.

The principle of Absolute Liability was used in India in case of M.C. Mehta. Initially in the history of England, Absolute Liability was very much prevalent as could be seen in the case of trespass by cattle termed as “negligent keeping” by Blackstone.

But then at one time the common-law rules as to liability for damage or injury by animals were felt to be historical anomalies destined to be ironed out by gradual extension of the idea of fault to all torts.

And then came up the landmark case of Rylands which gave some exceptions making the Absolute liability no more absolute(they used the term Strict) as in words of Sir Frederick Pollock “become slowly but surely choked and crippled with exceptions.”

WHY WAS THERE A WHY WAS THERE A NEED OF ABSOLUTE NEED OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY?LIABILITY?Tort Law is dynamic in Nature. It had to change with the Society.

Industrialization and Economic development of the Society.

The meaning of “hazardous ” changing to a great extent from the Case of Ryland to M.C.Mehta Case.

Defense of Exceptions might lead to escaping liability for dangerous activities.

Adjustment of Conflicting Interest.

M.C. Mehta v Union of India AIR M.C. Mehta v Union of India AIR 1987 SC 10861987 SC 1086 In case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, where

the Supreme Court was dealing with claims arising from the leakage of Oleum gas on 4th and 6th December, 1985 from one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries, in the city of Delhi, belonging to Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. As the consequence of this leakage, it was alleged that one advocate practicing in the Tis Hazari Court had died and several others were affected by the same. The action was brought through a writ petition under Art.32 of the Indian Constitution by way of public interest litigation as the Court thought that these applications for compensation raised certain important issues and those issues should be addressed by a constitutional bench.

JUDGMENT BY JUSTICE JUDGMENT BY JUSTICE BHAGWATIBHAGWATI“We would therefore hold that 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 or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for example, in 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 exceptions which operate vis-à-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher”

COMPARING STRICT AND ABSOLUTE COMPARING STRICT AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITYLIABILITY

Conceptual difference.Inarticulate premise of the Judges

affected the definition of two liabilities.

Burden of Proof.

STRICT LIABILITYSTRICT LIABILITY MERITS

1. It has a wider scope of

application.

2. It has foreseeability and it can incorporate new areas of liability like its application in Motor Vehicles Act 1939.

1. If it is applied in all situations along with the exceptions, it would limit the scope of legal standard of due care and so subjecting another to an unreasonable injury with a thing he enjoys himself.

2. It is an impediment in a social service state of today, there are certain relational liabilities established by legislation (Workmen’s Compensation); and the duties towards seamen, established in admiralty, have been much extended. Because of the danger to life and limb involved in industry etc. Liability of Reparation is imposed upon the industry.

DEMERITS

MERITS DEMERITS

ABSOLUTE LIABILITYABSOLUTE LIABILITY

1. It is stricter than strict liability and so industries involved in hazardous activities cannot take any plea.

2. It gives a background of support to certain relational liabilities like in Workmen’s Compensation where compensation is given even without fault.

1. It leads to the gradual extension of the idea of fault to all torts.

2. It has limited application. Only limited to hazardous activity.

3. It gives too much emphasis on enterprise liability.

A CRITIQUEA CRITIQUE

The concept of non-natural use of land.

The close connection of the strict liability rule with nuisance. Strict Liability rule is only applicable to the damage occurring outside the place in which the dangerous thing was kept. Strict Liability rule does not apply in cases of personal injuries. At one point of time the common law rules as to Absolute liability for damages or injury by animals were felt to be historical anomalies destined to be ironed out by gradual extension of the idea of fault to all torts.

SPECIAL THANKS:-Prof. G.V. Ajappa. Prof. Yogesh Pratap Singh.