I Year B.A. LL.

B – Semester-I (2021)

1st -Internal Assessment

LAW OF TORTS

Topic: Strict and absolute liability

NAME: SUSHMITA

DIVISION: D

PRN: 21010125372

COURSE: BA LL.B. (H)

BATCH: 2021-2026
PROBLEM:

‘W’ a workman in a factory was returning home on his bicycle in the night when he rode over
a live wire because of which he was electrocuted to death. The widow of W brought an action
for damages against the State Electricity Board claiming that the board could not escape from
its liability to pay damages as this was a case of strict liability. It was contended by the state
electricity board that one person ‘C’ had taken a wire from the main supply line in order to
siphon the energy for his own use and the said act was done without notice of the Board and
that the line got unfastened from the hook and fell on the road over which the deceased rode
the bicycle, accordingly liability could not be fastened on the State Electricity Board as the
reason for the unfortunate incident was “an act of stranger.”

Difference between strict liability and absolute liability:

The major difference was laid down in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India1. In strict liability, any
person can be made liable, but for absolute liability only enterprise can be made liable. There
is a necessity of the escape of dangerous thing for strict liability whereas; in absolute liability
an enterprise can be made responsible even without an escape. There are exceptions available
in strict liability but no exception or defences are available in absolute liability.

But our supreme court that rule of Rylands v Fletcher2 won’t be suitable in modern era of
science and technology.

Rule of strict liability:

Basically, there are three ingredients which need to be fulfilled to apply the rule of strict
liability:

1. Existence of dangerous thing: any dangerous thing must have been brought by person
on his land for instance, explosives, and noxious fumes.
2. Escape of such thing: when the dangerous thing goes beyond the control of defendant.
3. Non natural use: the thing must have been intended to be used for some non-natural
purpose.

1
1987, AIR 1987 SC 1086
2
[1868] UKHL 1, (1868)LR 3 HL 330

2
The defences that are applicable in case of strict liability are:

1. Plaintiff, the wrongdoer

Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)3:

Also, known as the landmark case for the rule of strict liability. In this case, the defendant
constructed a reservoir on his land to provide water to his mill. The defendant did not
know that there were some disused mineshafts just next to his reservoir. The water burst
through the reservoir into disused mineshafts and flooded the plaintiff’s coalmines in the
adjoining land. The court held him liable the court said the principle governing such a
situation is one of no fault or strict liability because. Here the huge Reservoir was said to
be the potentially dangerous thing.

Rickards v Lothian(1913)4:

The claimant rented the premises on second floor which was used as a business for
renting the place. The defendant was the owner. This case arosed because someone
maliciously blocked all the sinks on fourth floor and turned on all the taps to cause
damage. Eventually, this harmed the person residing on second floor. He started claiming
damages on the basis of rylands v Fletcher case. The court held that the defendant was not
to be held liable. As the water was a natural use of land.

Rule of absolute liability:

This is similar to the rule of strict liability except for the fact that there are no defences to it.
In effect there are absolutely no excuses for the harm caused. These rules are for specific
public interest because very dangerous activities are involved. if an enterprise is engaged in
an hazardous or inherently dangerous industry that causes a potential threat to the safety of
the persons working in the factory and residing the surrounding area, then if any harm in use
on account of such activity, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such
harm. This is also a no fault liability.
3
[1868] UKHL 1, (1868)LR 3 HL 330
4
[1913] UKPC 1, AC 263
None of defences are applicable here.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987):5

The rule of absolute liability was evolved in the famous Indian case of M.C. Mehta v. Union
of India. This case deals with the leakage of poisonous Oleum gas from one of the units of
Shriram Industries in Delhi, as a result of which, several people were injured. The court held
that irrespective of any lack of negligence or intention, the defendant was absolutely liable
for the damage caused. They said that in this rule of absolute liability, there was no defence
as were there in the Rylands strict liability rule.

Union Carbide Company vs. Union of India (1986)6

Which is popularly known as Bhopal Gas leak Tragedy, the Supreme Court held that Union
Carbide Corporation liable to pay compensation to the victims of the 1984 Bhopal gas
tragedy. The Court examined the prima facie material for the purpose of quantifying the
damages, and also the question of domestication of the decree in the United States for the
purpose of execution.

IS THE PRINCIPLE OF STRICT LIABILITY APPLICABLE?

According to my viewpoint, the principle of strict liability is applicable. Strict liability says
that any person who keeps hazardous substances in their premises and escapes out creating
some danger around is held to be strictly liable for it and has to pay the damages responsible
for it. If the defendant took all the necessary precautions to avoid reasonable harm, he could
not be held liable when action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration
is not relevant in cases of strict liability. The defendant is held responsible irrespective of the
precautions taken. The pre-requirements are essential for establishing liability under the rule
of strict liability, in other words, non-natural use, use of a dangerous thing, escape of such
thing. Due to this fact, the state electricity board cannot escape from liability by showing that
they had taken reasonable care and there was no negligence on its part. Also, if an enterprise
is permitted to do any dangerous activity, the law must presume that the permission is
conditional and absorb the cost of an accident. The state electricity board has to discover and
guard against hazards and provide warnings against the potential risks. As the live wire was
the dangerous thing that could cause harm to society, the state electricity board cannot escape
5
1987, AIR 1987 SC 1086
6
1990 AIR 273, 1989 SCC (2) 540
from its liability. The defence of the third party's act won't be applicable here in such a
situation because it was negligence on the part of the state electricity board. In the present
case, the board may Endeavour to rely on the exception to 'act of stranger' or 'act of the third
party. This exception won't be available to the board. As the act done by a third party should
reasonably have been anticipated by the board.

Is the State Electricity Board liable to pay damages to the widow of ‘W’?

Under the strict liability rule, the law makes people to pay compensation for the damages
occurred even if there was no fault of defendant. In other words, in case proper precautions
were taken still one has to pay the damages. In fact, permissions that allow such activities
which are a dangerous thing often include many pre-conditions. Even assuming, that all
measures were adopted to avoid the hazardous or risk to human life, is liable under the Law
of Torts to compensate for the injury or loss suffered by any other person. At any rate, if the
live fire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon would
automatically have been disrupted. Authorities managing such dangerous commodities have
extra duty to prevent such mishaps. It has its origin in English Common Law where in
Rylands v Fletcher case, Blackburn J the author said:

"The rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his lands and collects
and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it 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."

CONCLUSION:

The rule of absolute liability is similar to that of the rule of strict liability but with spome
provided modifications. Both rules can be seen as exceptions. A person is made liable only
when he is at fault. But the principles governing the rule of strict and absolute liability can be
made liable without any fault which is known as ‘no fault liability’, under which, the liable
person may not have done the act, but still will be made responsible for the damages
occurred. The rule of strict liability has been followed in many subsequent decisions in
England. A recent decision in the said doctrine rendered by House of Lords in Cambridge
Water Co. Ltd. v Eastern counties leather Plc. The laid principles are also followed and
approved in India. In strict liability there are some exceptions where the person or defendant
won’t be held liable. The defendant is made liable no matter what. But in absolute liability no
exceptions are provided to the defendant.

REFERENCES:

 BOOK:
 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, THE LAW OF TORTS, (26th Edition)
 ARTICLES:

 Absolute liability - Wikipedia