RULE OF STRICT LIABILITY

Meaning and Origin

The rule of strict liability emerged from the landmark English case of Rylands v Fletcher in 1868. It imposes liability without proof of fault or negligence for damages caused by dangerous substances that escape.

Key Elements of Strict Liability

1. Dangerous Thing: The defendant must bring some dangerous thing onto their land.
2. Escape: The dangerous thing must escape from the defendant’s control.
3. Non-natural Use of Land: The defendant’s use of the land must be considered non-natural or unusual.

Exceptions to Strict Liability

Courts have recognized several exceptions where strict liability does not apply:

• Plaintiff’s own fault
• Act of God
• Consent of the plaintiff
• Act of a third party
• Statutory authority

APPLICATION IN INDIA

Indian courts initially followed the English rule of strict liability. However some exceptions were made:

Agricultural Water Storage Exception

In Madras Railway Co. v. Zamindar the Privy Council held that storing water for agriculture was not subject to strict liability due to India’s unique conditions. Liability arose only if due care was not taken.

Motor Vehicle Accidents

The Motor Vehicles Act 1988 introduced limited no-fault liability for motor accident claims. Fixed compensation can be claimed without proving fault for death (Rs 50000) or permanent disability (Rs 25000).

Railways Liability

The Indian Railways Act 1890 was amended in 1961 to change railways’ liability from that of a bailee to that of an insurer for goods carried.

Rylands v Fletcher (1868)

Facts: Defendant’s reservoir flooded plaintiff’s coal mines through old shafts.

Held: Defendant strictly liable for escape of collected dangerous substance even without negligence.

RULE OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

Origin and Rationale

The rule of absolute liability was formulated by the Supreme Court of India in M.C. Mehta v Union of India (1987) in response to the Oleum gas leak case. The court felt strict liability had too many exceptions and was inadequate for modern industrial hazards.

Key Features

1. Applies to enterprises engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities.
2. Imposes liability without any exceptions unlike strict liability.
3. Enterprise must indemnify all those affected regardless of whether it was careful.
4. Compensation must be correlated to magnitude and capacity of enterprise.
5. Based on principle that profit-making enterprises have a social obligation to compensate victims.

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY APPLICATION

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

• Facts: Oleum gas leaked from factory in Delhi causing deaths and injuries.
• Held: Enterprises engaged in hazardous activities absolutely liable to compensate all victims without exceptions.

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India (1996)

• Facts: Chemical industries caused severe pollution in village.
• Held: Polluting industries absolutely liable to pay for environmental restoration and compensate villagers.

Union Carbide Corporation v Union of India (1990) – Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case

• Facts: Methyl isocyanate gas leak from pesticide plant in Bhopal caused thousands of deaths.
• Held: UCC absolutely liable to pay $470 million compensation to all victims of gas tragedy.

Environmental Pollution Cases

In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India (1996) the Supreme Court applied absolute liability to industries causing environmental pollution. Polluting industries were ordered to pay for remedial measures and compensate affected villagers.

Other Applications

Courts have applied absolute liability in cases involving:

• Injuries from defective hotel swimming pools
• Deaths from electrocution due to negligent power companies
• Damage from hazardous industrial waste

PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE ACT 1991

Key Features:

1. Mandates public liability insurance for enterprises handling hazardous substances.
2. Provides immediate relief to accident victims on no-fault basis.
3. Owner must take insurance before starting to handle hazardous substances.
4. Covers death injury or property damage from accidents while handling hazardous substances.
5. Based on principle of no-fault liability.

COMPARISON OF STRICT AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

• Basis of Liability: Strict liability arises from negligence while absolute liability is imposed regardless of fault or care taken.
• Exceptions: Strict liability allows exceptions like act of God while absolute liability has no exceptions.
• Compensation: Strict liability provides reasonable damages while absolute liability requires exemplary damages proportional to enterprise size.
• Applicability: Strict liability applies to dangerous substances escaping from land. Absolute liability covers hazardous industrial activities.
• Standard of Care: Strict liability considers precautions taken. Absolute liability disregards standard of care.
• Burden of Proof: Plaintiff must prove escape in strict liability. No burden on plaintiff in absolute liability.