Rule of Strict Liability & Absolute Liability.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
(1.1) INTRODUCTORY –
 |
| Rule of Strict Liability & Absolute Liability. |
A.
AIMS
AND OBJECTIVES
Before going into the details of the project topics, it is necessary to
understand its objectives. The objectives of my projects are its core. In order
to achieve the objectives principles are prescribed and then mandates are
formulated to serve the principles. If mandates are given without comprehending
the objectives, there is a possibility of the mandate being applied to
particular issue in a way that forfeits the very essence of the law. In the
same way, a person, who is unaware of the objectives of a law, will not be able
to follow it in the true spirit of the law. The main aim and objective of the
project Is to bring out the various aspects of Strict Liability and Absolute
Liability in regards to damages sustained by the party giving compensations and
such other points related.
B.
STATEMENT
OF PROBLEM
There
is some problem regarding determining Strict Liability and Absolute Liability
in regards of which damage will fall under which category and determining the
magnitudes of the loss occurred and the damages sustained to be beared by which
parties to what extend.
C.
RESEARCH
QUESTION
Based on the statement of problem and research
hypothesis aforementioned, the following research questions have been
formulated:
(1)
What is Strict Liability, its essentials & exceptions?
(2)
What is the Absolute Liability?
(3)
Difference between Strict & Absolute Liability.
D. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
The research work is an attempt to distill lessons
and by critically examine the Strict Liability and Absolute Liability. It is an
attempt to know the various speculations which is based on incomplete evidence
where there is no pecuniary interest from the parties.
E.
METHODS OF RESEARCH
“Methodology” implies more than simply
the methods the researcher used to collect data. It is often necessary to
include a consideration of the concepts and theories which underlie the
methods. The methodology opted for the study on
the topic may be Doctrinal.
Doctrinal research in law field indicates arranging, ordering
and analysis of the legal structure, legal frame work and case laws by
extensive surveying of legal literature but without any field work.
 |
| CHAPTER ONE |
(1.1) INTRODUCTORY –
There are many activities which are so
dangerous that they constitute constant danger to person and property to
others. The law may deal with them in two ways. It may prohibit them
altogether. It may allow them to be carried on for the sake of social utility
but only in accordance with statutory provisions laying down safety measures
and providing for sanctions for non-compliance through
the doctrine of strict liability. The undertakers of the activities have to
compensate for the damage caused irrespective of any carelessness on their
part. The basis of liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very
nature of the activities. In this aspect, the principle of strict liability
resembles negligence which is also based on foreseeable harm. But the
difference lies in that the concept of negligence comprehends that the
foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions and so if
the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm, he cannot
be held liable except possibly in those cases where he should have closed down
the undertaking. Such a consideration is not relevant in cases of strict
liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could
have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions.
The whole idea of having Absolute
liability and Strict Liability is to regulate activities or products that are
dangerous (e.g. exposed electrical wires) or have a high chance of being
harmful (e.g. that vicious toy radio with a sharp pin behind the press button).
Strict Liability laws were created in the 1800s to improve health and safety
issues in factories by increasing the conviction rate. Before that, it was
exceedingly difficult for prosecutors prove mensrea (the intention to commit the prohibited act) in
those kinds of settings. Absolute liability offences are quite rare because
courts hate classifying offences as such because of the harshness of liability
(no defense allowed). They exist, however, because it encourages people to take
many precautions to avoid the prohibited act.
 |
| CHAPTER TWO |
CHAPTER – II
WHAT IS STRICT LIABILITY, ITS ESSENTIALS
& EXCEPTIONS
(2.1) WHAT IS STRICT
LIABILITY ?
Strict liability, sometimes
called absolute liability, is the legal responsibility for damages, or injury,
even if the person found strictly liable was not at fault or negligent. Strict
liability has been applied to certain activities in Tort such as holding an
employer absolutely liable for the torts of her employees, but today it is most
commonly associated with defectively manufactured products. In addition, for
reasons of public policy, certain activities may be conducted only if the
person conducting them is willing to insure others against the harm that
results from the risks the activities create. In tort law strict liability has
traditionally been applied for damages caused by animals. Because animals are
not governed by a conscience and possess great capacity to do mischief if not
restrained, those who keep animals have a duty to restrain them. In most
jurisdictions the general rule is that keepers of all animals, including
domesticated ones, are strictly liable for damage resulting from the Trespass of their animals on the property
of another. Owners of dogs and cats, however, are not liable for their pets'
trespasses, unless the owners have been negligent or unless strict liability is
imposed by statute or ordinance.
Strict liability for harm
resulting from abnormally dangerous conditions and activities developed in the
late nineteenth century. It will be imposed if the harm results from the
miscarriage of an activity that, though lawful, is unusual, extraordinary,
exceptional, or inappropriate in light of the place and manner in which the
activity is conducted. Common hazardous activities that could result in strict
liability include storing explosives or flammable liquids, blasting,
accumulating sewage, and emitting toxic fumes. Although these activities may be
hazardous, they may be appropriate or normal in one location but not another.
For example, storing explosives in quantity will create an unusual and
unacceptable risk in the midst of a large city but not in a remote rural area.
If an explosion occurs in the remote area, strict liability will be imposed only
if the explosives were stored in an unusual or abnormal way.
Strict
liability is the principle which evolved from case of Rylands v.
Fletcher UKHL 1, (1868) LR 3
HL 330. This principle clearly states that a person, who
keeps hazardous substances in his premises, is responsible for the fault if
that substance escapes in any manner and causes damages. This principle stands
true if there was no negligence on the side of the person keeping it and the
burden of proof always lies on the defendant to prove how he is not liable.
(2.2) ESSENTIALS
Dangerous
Substances: The defendant will be held
strictly liable only if a “dangerous” substances escapes from his premises. For
the purpose of imposing strict liability, a dangerous substance can be defined
as any substance which will cause some mischief or harm if it escapes. Things
like explosives, toxic gasses, electricity, etc. can be termed as dangerous
things.
Escape: One
more essential condition to make the defendant strictly liable is that the
material should escape from the premises and shouldn’t be within the reach of
the defendant after its escape. For instance, the defendant has some poisonous
plant on his property. Leaves from the plant enter the property of the
plaintiff and is eaten by his cattle, which as a result die. The defendant will
be liable for the loss. But on the other hand, if the cattle belonging to the
plaintiff enter the premises of the defendant and eats the poisonous leaves and
die, the defendant would not be liable. In the judicial pronouncement of Reads
v. Lyons & Co [1947]
AC 156 House of Lords it was held that if there is no escape, the
defendant cannot be held liable.
Non-natural Use: To constitute a strict liability, there
should be a non-natural use of the land. In the case of Rylands v.
Fletcher UKHL 1, (1868) LR 3
HL 330 , the water collected in the reservoir was considered to
be a non-natural use of the land. Storage of water for domestic use is
considered to be natural use. But storing water for the purpose of energizing a
mill was considered non-natural by the Court. When the term “non-natural” is to
be considered, it should be kept in mind that there must be some special use
which increases the danger to others. Supply of cooking gas through the
pipeline, electric wiring in a house, etc. is considered to be the natural use
of land. For instance, if the defendant lights up a fire in his fireplace and a
spark escape and causes a fire, the defendant will not be held liable as it was
a natural use of the land.
These three condition
needs to be satisfied simultaneously to constitute a strict liability.
(2.3)
EXCEPTIONS
There are certain exceptions to the rule of strict liability,
which are-
Plaintiff’s Fault: If
the plaintiff is at fault and any damage is caused, the defendant wouldn’t be
held liable, as the plaintiff himself came in contact with the dangerous thing,
pointed in the leading case of Ponting vs. Noakes
Act of God: The phrase “act of God” can be defined as an event which is
beyond the control of any human agency. Such acts happen exclusively due to
natural reasons and cannot be prevented even while exercising caution and
foresight. The defendant wouldn’t be liable for the loss if the dangerous
substance escaped because of some unforeseen and natural event which couldn’t
have been controlled in any manner.
Consent of the Plaintiff: This exception follows the principle of Volenti non fit Injuria.
For instance, if A and B are neighbors, and they
share the same water source which is situated on the land of A, and if the
water escapes and causes damage to B, he can’t claim damages, as A wouldn’t be
liable for the damage.
(2.4) ORIGIN OF THE
STRICT LIABILITY RULE
The Strict Liability rule had
its origins in nuisance but for most of the 20th century was
probably regarded by the majority of lawyers as having developed into a
distinct principle. Now it seems to have returned to what are regarded as its
roots: it is a “sub species of nuisance”. But on balance it still merits some
separate treatment. Liability under the rule is strict in the sense that it
relieves the claimant of the burden of showing fault; however, it is far from
absolute since there are a number of wide ranging differences. In Rylands v
Fletcher UKHL 1, (1868) LR 3 HL 330 the House of Lords laid down the rule recognizing ‘No
fault ‘or ‘Strict Liability’, i.e., even if the defendant was not negligent or
rather, even if the defendant did not intentionally cause the harm he could
still be held liable under the rule.
The facts of the case were as
follows. 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 neighbor of the defendant, although no one
suspected this, for the shafts appeared to be filled with earth. 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
basis of liability in the above case was the following rule propounded by
Blackburn,
“We think that the rule of
law is, that 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.”
 |
| CHAPTER THREE |
CHAPTER III
ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
(3.1) WHAT IS ABSOLUTE LIABILITY?
Absolute liability is a standard of legal liability found in tort and criminal law of various legal
jurisdictions. To be convicted of an
ordinary crime, in certain jurisdictions, a person must not only have committed
a criminal action, but also have had a deliberate intention or guilty mind (mens rea). In a crime of strict liability (criminal) or absolute
liability, a person could be guilty even if there was no intention to
commit a crime. The difference between strict and absolute liability
is whether the defense of a mistake
of fact is available: in a crime of absolute liability, a mistake of fact is not a defense. Strict
or Absolute Liability- also can arise from inherently dangerous activities or
defective products that are likely to result in harm to another, regardless of
protection taken. Negligence is not required to be proven. Example: Owning a
pet rattle snake.
An absolute
liability offence is a type of criminal offence that does not require
any fault elements (mens rea) to be proved in order to
establish guilt. The prosecution only needs to show that the accused performed
the prohibited act actus reus (action or conduct
which is a constituent element of a crime, as opposed to the mental state of
the accuse). As such, absolute liability offences do not allow for a defense of mistake of fact.
Due to
the ease with which the offence can be proven, only select offences are of this
type. In most legal systems, absolute liability offences must be clearly
labelled as such in the criminal code or criminal legislation.
It
is a tortuous liability. Absolute liability can be imposed on a person even
without proof of the person’s negligence. Generally, owners, employers, and
manufacturers are brought under the rule of absolute liability. Absolute
liability is sometimes called strict liability. Absolute liability arises when
a manufacturer of a non-defective product is held absolutely liable for the
damage that resulted because of use of the product.
(3.2) PRINCIPLES OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITIES
It
is the fundamental principle of law that “Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas” (means:
Enjoy your own property in a manner as not to injure another person’s). But
there are certain occasions and activities, by which there are chances of
causing harm or injury to the useful peoples For example Factories. Absolute
Liabilities Rule laid down by Supreme Court of India in the M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India 1987 SCR (1) 819 & Union Carbide
Corporation v. Union of India (1991)
4 SCC 548 (popularly known as Bhopal Gas Tragedy)
(3.3) INCEPTION OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITIES
IN INDIA
Offences in which it is not
open to a person to avoid liability on the ground that she or he acted under a
reasonable mistake of fact which, if the facts had been as the accused believed
them to be, would have made his act innocent. The following modifications in
the existing Doctrine of Rylands v. Fletcher led to the following Doctrine of
Absolute Liability that prevented the defendants from taking up any defense
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 defense 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 equipment s 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.
 |
| CHAPTER FOUR |
(4.1) RYLANDS v. FLETCHER UKHL 1,
(1868) LR 3 HL 330
Fact of the case - In
1860, Thomas Fletcher paid contractors to build a reservoir on his land,
intending that it should supply the Ainsworth Mill with
water. Fletcher played no active role in the construction, instead contracting
out to a competent engineer. While building it, the contractors discovered a
series of old coal shafts and passages under the land filled loosely with soil
and debris, which joined up with John Ryland’s adjoining mine. Rather than
blocking these shafts up, the contractors left them. On 11 December 1860,
shortly after being filled for the first time, Fletcher's reservoir burst and
flooded Ryland’s mine, the Red House Colliery, causing £937 worth of damage.
Fletcher pumped the water out, but on 17 April 1861 his pump burst, and the
mine again began to flood. At this point a mines inspector was brought in, and
the sunken coal shafts were discovered. Rylands and the owner, Jehu
Horrocks, brought a claim against Fletcher on 4 November 1861.
Judgment - The House of Lords
dismissed the appeal and agreed with the determination for Rylands.
Lord Cairns, in speaking for
the House of Lords, stated their agreement of the rule stated above by Justice
Blackburn, but added a further limitation on liability, which is that the land
from which the escape occurs must have been modified in a way which would be
considered non-natural, unusual or inappropriate. The case was then heard by
the House of Lords on
6 and 7 July 1868, with a judgment delivered on 17 July. Oddly the court
consisted of only two judges, Lord Cairns and Lord Cranworth; Lord Colonsay failed
to attend. The eventual judgment confirmed Blackburn's decision and
general principle, adding a requirement that the use be
"non-natural".
(4.2) READS v. LYONS & Co [1947] AC
156 HOUSE of LORDS
Fact of
the case -The claimant was employed by the
defendant in their factory which made explosives for the Ministry of Supply.
During the course of her employment an explosion occurred which killed a man
and injured others including the claimant. There was no evidence that
negligence had caused the explosion. At trial the judge held that the case was
governed by the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and liability was
therefore strict. The Court of Appeal reversed this decision as the rule
in Rylands v Fletcher required an escape
of the hazardous matter. The claimant appealed.
Judgment - The House of Lords dismissed the appeal.
In the absence of any proof of negligence on behalf of the defendant or an
escape of dangerous thing, there was no cause of action on which the claimant
could succeed.
(4.3) PONTING v. NOAKES [1849] 2 QB 281
Fact of the case - In this case, the plaintiff’s
horse had nibbled on some poisonous leaves by reaching over the boundary of the
defendant’s land and had eventually died.
Judgment - The court held that the vegetation on the
defendant’s land had not spread over to the plaintiff’s side but it was the
intrusion of the plaintiff’s horse in the defendant’s land when it chewed on
the leaves of the plant sowed in the defendant’s plot. It was a case of the
plaintiff himself being at fault, therefore he could not demand any remedy for
the loss caused to him.
(4.4) M.C MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA [1987] SCR (1) 819
Fact
of the case - 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).
Judgment - 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.
(4.5)
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION vs. UNION of INDIA
[1991] 4 SCC 548
Fact of the case - 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.
Judgment - 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.
 |
| CHAPTER FIVE |
(5)
CONCLUSION
All
the merits of both Strict and Absolute liability can be very well converted to
their demerits in no time. Absolute Liability leads to the gradual extension of
the idea of fault to all torts. It has limited application due to its absolute
nature, only limited to Hazardous Industries, and never the less, suppose its
application in cases like Professional Liabilities of Doctors & Lawyers
disregarding even the generally accepted parameter of minimum degree of
competence and reasonable care in the discharge of their duties’ and
application of the strict principle of Absolute liability with no
flexibility to the extent that it does not even recognize the Act
of God as a defense, it would prove to be disastrous and hinder the free
practice of the professionals as they will try to safeguard themselves from any
kind of risks. Not just in case of professional liabilities but Absolute
Liability would also be a failure in case it is applied in a country that is
developing in terms of Technology and Science. That might me the reason as to
why Absolute Liability (the way applied in India) is not applied and not
accepted in US. They rather follow the principle of Strict Liability in almost
every jurisdiction in US. There the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff who
must prove that the defect in a product was the actual and proximate cause of
damage, which is not the case in Absolute Liability. It
gives too much emphasis on enterprise liability which is yet another demerit as
it promotes the idea of full blow theory of Enterprise liability (without any
fault) amounting to the reduction of incentives from the victim to take care to
avoid accidents or rather make him more careless because if you see to the
conditions applied in M.C. Mehta of must rule of indemnifying regardless of
being careful & it leaves the victim with no sense of responsibility
for his own act as he knows his faults would be compensated by someone else.
 |
| BIBLIOGRAPHY |
A.
PRIMARY
SOURCES
BOOKS
(1).Dr.
Bangia R.K., Law of Torts, Allahabad Law Agency, 23rd Edition,2013.
(2).Rosedar
SRA, B.Com, BL, Lexis Nexis, Law of Torts & Consumer Protection.
(3). Ratanlal and
Dhirajlal’s (The Lay of Torts).
B.
WEB
(1). https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/no-fault-liability/
(2). https://www.legalbites.in/rules-strict-absolute-liability/
(3). http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/strict-and-absolute-liability-2155-1.html
C. DICTIONARY
CONCISE LAW DICTIONARY (LEXIS NEXIS)
FIFTH EDITION.
 |
| Rule of Strict Liability & Absolute Liability. |
No comments:
Post a Comment