Project on

“Strict and Absolute Liability”

Jurisprudence - II

SUBMITTED BY- Ujjwal Mishra

B.A. LL.B. (Self-Finance)

SEMESTER V

BATCH 2017-22

Page | 1
 Strict and Absolute Liability

Definition

The rule of law is that the 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 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 - Blackburn, J.

Absolute Liability
If an industry or enterprise is engaged in some inherently dangerous activity from which it is
deriving commercial gain and that activity is capable of causing catastrophic damage then the
industry officials are absolutely liable to pay compensation to the aggrieved parties. The
industry cannot plead that all safety measures were taken care of by them and that there was
negligence on their part. They will not be allowed any exceptions neither can they take up
any defence like that of ‘Act of God’ or ‘Act of Stranger’.

Strict Liability
The rule of absolute liability, in simple words, can be defined as the rule of strict liability
minus the exceptions. In India, the rule of absolute liability evolved in the case of MC Mehta
v Union of India1. This is one of the most landmark judgment which relates to the concept of
absolute liability.

Important Terms used in Definition:

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.

Escape: The thing that has caused damage or mischief must ‘escape’ from the area under the
occupation and control of the defendant.

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.

1
A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1086.

Page | 2
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.

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. In the cases that I will now mention, the onus of being negligent can be
ignored. In spite of all due care taken by the defendant, he will invariably be held for the
consequences of the damages caused to any person outside of the boundary of the defendant’s
land by any hazardous thing that he maintained on the same stretch of land i.e. in spite of no
intentional or unintentional fault of his, the defendant can be held liable hence, explaining the
term ‘No Fault Liability’.

Going by the principle laid in 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 answerable 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. Based on this judicial pronouncement, the concept of strict liability came into
being. There are some essential conditions which should be fulfilled to categorize a liability
under the head of strict liability.

This principle was first applied in the House of Lords in respect to the case ‘Rylands vs.
Fletcher2’.

Rylands vs. Fletcher: The defendant (Fletcher) an owner of a mill in Answorth with an aim
to improve water supply for his mill employed independent and efficient engineers for the
construction of a reservoir. During their excavation of the ground underneath, they came
across some shafts and passages but chose not to block them. Post construction of the
reservoir when they filled it with water, all the water flowed through the unblocked old shafts
and passages to the plaintiff’s (Rylands) coal mines on the adjoining land and inundated them
completely. The engineers kept the defendant in the dark about the occurrence of these
incidents. On a suit filed before the court by the plaintiff against the defendant, the court
though ruled out negligence on the defendant’s part but held him liable under the rule of
Strict Liability. Any amount of carefulness on his part is not going to save him where his
liability falls under the scope of ‘No Fault Liability’.

2
(1868) LR 3 HL 330.

Page | 3
Absolute Liability
The following modifications in the existing Doctrine of Rylands vs. Fletcher led to the
following Doctrine of Absolute Liability that prevented the defendants from taking up any
defence against payment of compensation:-

If an industry or enterprise is involved in any inherently dangerous activity, then for any
damage arising out of the conduction of that activity, the defendants (the owners of the
industry) will have no access to any defence or exception and will be absolutely liable to pay
compensation to the aggrieved parties.

The enterprise will be held responsible for all possible damages or consequences resulting
from the activity. This will make such industries provide safety equipments to its workers to
prevent any mishap. Therefore, this will safeguard the interests of the workers and will give
them a refined, safe working atmosphere.

The element of escape which is an essential in strict liability may be ignored here as this
restricts the application of this Doctrine of Absolute Liability as often incidents may arise
where escape of the dangerous thing like poisonous fumes may not take place outside the
industry premises but may damage the workers inside. In this case, the workers’ right to
compensation will not be ignored. Therefore, the extent of this principle is to be applied in a
wider context ruling out the element of escape.

In cases where strict liability applies, compensation paid is according to the nature and
quantum of damages caused but in cases of absolute liability, compensation or damage to be
paid is exemplary in nature. The amount decided upon should be more than the damage
caused as industrial hazardous accidents generally causes mass death and destruction of
property and environment.

A few cases where Absolute Liability was upheld:

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India3 :

The S.C. of India was dealing with claims of leakage of oleum gas on the 4th and 6th
December,1985 from one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries, Delhi. Due
to this leakage, one advocate and several others had died. An action was brought against the
industry through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution by way of a Public
Interest Litigation (PIL). The judges in this case refused to follow the Strict Liability
Principle set by the English Laws and came up with the Doctrine of Absolute Liability. The
court then directed the organizations who had filed the petitions to file suits against the
industry in appropriate courts within a span of 2 months to demand compensation on behalf
of the aggrieved victims.

3
A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1086.

Page | 4
Bhopal Gas Tragedy / Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India4 :
This doctrine was upheld in the infamous Bhopal Gas Tragedy which took place between the
intervening night of 2nd and 3rd December, 1984. Leakage of methyl-iso-cyanide (MIC)
poisonous gas from the Union Carbide Company in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh led to a major
disaster and over three thousand people lost their lives. There was heavy loss to property,
flora and fauna. The effects were so grave that children in those areas are born with
deformities even today. A case was filed in the American New York District Court as the
Union Carbide Company in Bhopal was a branch of the U.S. based Union Carbide Company.
The case was dismissed there owing to no jurisdiction. The Government of India enacted the
Bhopal Gas Disaster (Processing of Claims) 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 the victims.

Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action vs. Union of India5

A PIL filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution voiced protests of the petitioners over
the presence of industries that was causing large scale environmental pollution and
endangering the lives of the villagers who resided in the vicinity of the industries. It violated
their right to life and liberty given under Article 21of the Indian Constitution as they were
unable to live in a healthy environment. The Supreme Court initiated instant action and
ordered the Central Government and the Pollution Control Board to constitute strict measures
against the said industries. The court upheld the Doctrine of Absolute Liability here stating
that the polluted environment must be restored to a pollution free one conducive for healthy
living by utilizing anti-pollution scientific appliances. The expenditure so incurred in this
process must be paid by the industries even if their properties need to be attached for this
purpose. The industries were made absolutely liable for paying monetary damages for
restoration of the environment.

Absolute Liability can also be upheld by the courts in case of a single death without any
mass destruction of property or pollution of the environment.

Klaus Mittelbachert vs. East India Hotels Ltd6:

In this case, the plaintiff, a German co-pilot suffered grave injuries after diving into the
swimming pool of the five-star restaurant. Upon investigation, it was seen that the pool was
defectively designed and had insufficient amount of water as well. The pilot’s injuries left
him paralyzed leading to death after 13 years of the accident. The court held that five-star
hotels that charge hefty amounts owe a high degree of care to its guests. This was violated by
Hotel Oberoi Inter-continental, New Delhi when the defectively designed swimming pool left
a man dead. This made the hotel absolutely liable for payment of damages. The hefty
4
(1991) 4 SCC 548.
5
AIR 1996 SC 1446.

6
A.I.R 1997 Delhi 201.
Page | 5
amounts taken from the guests by the hotel owners guaranteed them to pay exemplary
damages to the deceased or in any such further cases. It was decided that the plaintiff would
receive Rs. 50 lakhs for the accident caused.
However, with the death of the plaintiff while the suit was still pending in the court, the cause
of action also died and the aforesaid decision was reversed on appeal by the defendant party.7

7
A.I.R, 2002 Delhi 124 D.B.

Page | 6
Bibliography

 ‘Law of Torts including Consumer Protection Laws and

Compensation under Motor Vehicles Act’ textbook by Dr. N.V.
Paranjape (publisher- Central Law Agency).
 ‘Law of Torts including Compensation under Motor Vehicles
Act and Consumer Protection Laws’ textbook by Dr. R.K.
Bangia (publisher- Allahabad Law Agency).
 ‘The Law of Torts’ textbook by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal (updated
26th edition, publisher- LexisNexis).
 Cases have been referred from SCC OnLine and Manupatra
(Legal Databases).
 The Concept of Law by H. L. A. Hart.
 V.D. Mahajan's - Jurisprudence And Legal Theory.

Page | 7