Two legal principles, one common solution – Damages. On one hand, there is an English concept of Strict Liability, imposing liability upon the person in certain circumstances, also providing some exceptions. On the other hand, there is this Desi Indian concept evolved in the Indian Courts called Absolute Liability. While both pertain to No-Fault liability, what makes strict and absolute liability stand out while being the sisters, has been discussed hereunder.
No-Fault Liability: What Is It?
In the event that the plaintiff’s legal rights are infringed upon due to the defendant’s action. This means that the defendant bears fault-based accountability for paying damages. However, in cases when the plaintiff’s rights are violated without the defendant’s consent or active role, the defendant is still obligated to compensate the plaintiff; this is known as a no-fault liability.
To put it succinctly, a liability that arises out of no fault is a no-fault liability. Here, we are addressing two major categories of no fault liability:
1. Strict Liability
2. Absolute Liability
Strict and Absolute Liability
For clear understanding, it is important to have a one-on-one understanding of the two concepts followed by the distinction.
Strict Liability
Strict liability in tort law refers to the application of liability to a party without a conclusion of fault (e.g., carelessness or tortious intent). Being strict by nature, the doctrine was evolved by the English Court in the Rylands v. Fletcher[1] case, which helped in shaping no-fault liability. Let’s delve into the case facts:
Fletcher had a mill on his property, and to operate it, he constructed a reservoir on his land. Unfortunately, there was an accident, and water from the reservoir flooded the coal mines owned by Rylands, his neighbor. As a result, Rylands took legal action against Fletcher. The court ruled that since the defendant chose to build the reservoir, a non-natural use of land, he assumed the risk associated with it. Therefore, if any accidents occurred during its construction or operation, the defendant would be held responsible for any material escaping from it and the resulting damage.
The strict liability concept, which was established in 1868, stipulates that a person who stores dangerous materials on his property, leading to a non-natural use of land, will be held liable, if those materials escape and cause any damage.
The Court decided that the defendant constructed the reservoir at his own risk and that, in case of an accident, he will be held accountable for both the incident and the material’s escape. A strict responsibility rule holds an individual accountable for any harm and losses brought about by their actions and inactions, regardless of fault.
It is not necessary to demonstrate blame, negligence, or intent under strict liability.
Essentials of Strict Liability-
1. Dangerous thing brought on land- Under this principle, the responsibility for something escaping from one’s property arises if the object in question is hazardous, meaning it could cause harm if it gets loose. In the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, the item that caused harm was a large water body. Various other substances and objects, such as gas, electricity, vibrations, yew trees, sewage, flagpoles, explosives, unpleasant odors, and rusty wire, have all been subjected to the strict liability doctrine.
2. Escape of that thing- For strict liability to come into play, the source of harm must also move beyond the defendant’s area of responsibility and control. So, if the branches of a poisonous tree extend onto a neighbor’s property, this counts as an escape. If animals on the neighbor’s land are harmed by eating the leaves of that tree, the defendant would be held responsible under strict liability rule. In another case, Read v. Lyons & Co.[2], there was no situation of something escaping, the claim ofstrict responsibility was rejected. Peeking into facts, the plaintiff here was employed at the defendant’s munitions factory when the incident occurred. She was injured while performing her duties when a shell being manufactured on the defendant’s premises exploded. In this case, the defendants were not deemed negligent in any manner. Although the exploding shell was indeed hazardous, the defendants were not held accountable because the object did not “escape” from their premises.
3. Non-natural use of land- Natural usage involves activities like storing water for daily household needs. For an activity to be considered non-natural, it must involve a particular use that poses increased risks to others. It can’t just be a regular land use or something beneficial to the community at large. In the case of Sochacki v. Sas[3], it was established that having a fire in a fireplace at home is common. If that fire were to accidentally spread to neighboring properties, the principles of strict liability wouldn’t be applicable.
Exceptions to Strict Liability-
1. Plaintiff’s Fault: The defendant will not be held accountable if the substance escaped because of the plaintiff’s negligence.
2. Act of God: The exception depicts any natural calamity causing the incident which would have been beyond human control.
3. Third-party act: If a third party committed an act which was not foreseeable, the defendant cannot be held accountable.
4. Plaintiff’s consent: Volenti non fit injuria is an exemption to strict liability that requires the plaintiff’s consent to the danger posed.
Absolute Liability
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[4], the Supreme Court had adopted the rule of “Absolute Liability” above the English rule of “Strict Liability” established in Rylands v. Fletcher. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of M.C. Mehta regarding the aftermath of the Oleum gas leak in 1985 at a facility owned by Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries in Delhi. This legal action was initiated as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) through a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The judges were mindful of the human toll, considering that this incident marked the second major gas leak disaster in India within a year. The Bhopal Gas Tragedy, where over 3,000 people lost their lives and thousands more suffered from various serious health issues due to the release of MIC gas from the Union Carbide factory a year ago, weighed heavily upon their minds.
In a bold move, the Supreme Court declared that it wasn’t restricted by the outdated 19th Century English legal doctrines. Recognizing the need for laws that reflect India’s modern social and economic landscape, the Court introduced the concept of “Absolute Liability” to replace the outdated rule of Strict Liability. The new principle of Absolute Liability aimed to hold parties accountable for any harm caused, without any room for exceptions, as against those outlined in the landmark case of Rylands v. Fletcher.
Under the idea of absolute liability in tort law, the defendant is liable without having to establish any degree of fault or negligence. In contrast to other standards like as strict liability or negligence, the plaintiff is not required to prove that the defendant was careless or failed to use reasonable caution.
Regardless of the steps taken to avoid any injury, the defendant is liable under full liability for any losses brought about by their actions. Not because of negligence, but because of the act, there is liability. The idea behind absolute liability is that some behaviours are so dangerous that people should be held accountable for any harm they cause. By compensating victims and discouraging careless behaviour, it seeks to safeguard the public interest as opposed to imposing culpability based on morally defensible standards.
Essentials and Application of Absolute Liability
Activities that are deemed risky or hazardous by nature are subject to the principle of absolute liability. In order to establish absolute culpability, the plaintiff need merely demonstrate:
1. The defendant was involved in an activity that was dangerous by nature.
2. The hazardous material escaped as a result of the activity.
3. Damages were caused by the hazardous material.
In contrast to strict liability, absolute liability does not require-
1. Proof of escape, because if a company is given the green light to carry out any risky or inherently unsafe operations for profit, the law should assume that this permission comes with the responsibility of covering the costs, if an accident occurs as a natural part of its business expenses. Engaging in such activities for private gain should only be allowed if the company agrees to compensate anyone affected by the activity, regardless of how skillfully it’s executed.
2. Non-natural usage, or special use of land. When discussing what qualifies as “non-natural,” it’s important to remember that there must be a specific purpose or utilization that heightens the risk to others. The difference between natural and non-natural use of land is determined by the prevailing social context. For instance, cultivating trees and plants on land is seen as a conventional use, but if someone starts growing toxic trees, it would be classified as an unconventional land use.
3. Proof of reasonable care. The Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India emphasized that companies have a duty to ensure that any risky or inherently dangerous activities they undertake are conducted with the utmost safety measures. If such activities lead to harm, the company must be fully responsible for compensating those affected, regardless of whether it argues that it took all reasonable precautions or that the harm happened without its negligence.
Also read – Supreme Court illuminates on Eggshell Skull Rule
Distinction between Strict and Absolute liability
| Criteria | Strict liability | Absolute liability |
| Definition | Imposes legal responsibility on a party for damages caused, regardless of fault or negligence, but with certain exceptions. | Imposes legal responsibility on a party for damages caused, regardless of fault or negligence. |
| Fault Requirement | Does not require proof of fault or negligence. | Does not require proof of fault or negligence. |
| Scope of Liability | Applies to certain inherently dangerous activities or products. | Applies to highly hazardous activities or substances that have the potential to cause significant harm. |
| Burden of Proof | The claimant must prove that the harm was caused by the defendant’s actions or the defendant’s liability-triggering activity or product. | The claimant needs to demonstrate that the damage resulted from either the actions of the defendant or the activity or product for which the defendant is legally responsible. |
| Defenses | Possible defenses could involve showing that the plaintiff played a role in the harm, willingly accepted the associated risks, or that the harm was caused by someone else’s actions. | Possible defenses could be defendant entering the dangerous premises without any dangerous material escaping, or triggering any of the essentials of absolute liability. |
| Exceptions | Defenses or exceptions can reduce or nullify strict liability. | Absolute liability isn’t subject to exceptions. |
| Application | Usually applied in product liability lawsuits, risky endeavors (like owning hazardous animals), and specific statutory violations. | Applied in instances concerning activities or substances with an exceedingly high potential for harm, like managing dangerous chemicals or participating in inherently risky activities. |
This amazing piece on strict and absolute liability is written by Ms. Anshra Zafar.
[1] UKHL 1, L.R. 3 H.L. 330 [2] [1947] AC 156 [3] [1947] All ER 344 [4] AIR 1987 SC 1086
