LAW OF TORT

ASSIGNMENT
TOPIC:VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF STATE

SUBMITTED BY,+
 CONTENTS

 INTRODUCTION

 RYLAND VS. FLETCHER

 RULE OF STRICT LIABILITY

 RULE OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

 CONCLUSION
 REFERENCE
 TABLE OF CASES

 Box v. Jubb
 Green v. Chelsea Co
 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
 Read v. Lyons and Co
 Rylands vs. Fletcher
 Sochacki v. Sas
 INTRODUCTION

The evolution and origin of a legal concept cannot be better examined and
studied, than through understanding the evolution of the principle of ‘Absolute
Liability’. The said principle is a tortious, civil law concept that has morphed into
the realm of constitutional and environmental law principles. In analyzing the
evolution of absolute liability, a detour into the concept of strict liability is
mandated, as the former principal garners its foundational backing from the latter.
Absolute Liability, in essence, refers to the principle of finding an individual
engaged in some hazardous/dangerous act, as a result of which they cause
harm/wrong to the environment and public, absolutely liable for their acts and
actions, irrespective of their intent to commit a wrong, and/or knowledge that their
acts and actions would lead to the commission of a wrong. The concept was
developed over a period of time, from myriad precedents, and other relative tenants
of tort law, which make the principle of absolute liability as distinguished and
independent as it stands today. 

Rylands vs. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330 is one of the landmark cases of
tort law.  In this case, The House of Lords laid down the rule recognizing ‘No
Fault’ liability. The ‘Rule of Strict Liability’ originated in this case. By this rule, a
person may be liable for some harm even though he is not negligent in causing the
same. Further, this case paved the way for ‘The Rule Of Absolute liability’ in
India.
 RYLAND VS. FLETCHER

 Statement of Facts

1. The defendants, who owned mills in Lancashire, constructed a reservoir

on their land, which lay across from the land of the plaintiff, who had an
active coal mine functioning thereon.

2. The defendants employed a contractor, who, without knowing and

without due diligence, constructed the reservoir on top of make-shift
shafts and an abandoned, unstable mine.

3. Through a filled-in shaft of an abandoned mine, water from the reservoir

seeped into the coal mine across the defendants’ land, onto the plaintiffs’
property, thus flooding and destroying the active mine on his land. 

 Issues raised in the Court

1. Whether the defendants were liable for negligence themselves

irrespective of the proof negligence on their own part, or on the part of
anyone employed by them to make the reservoir?

2. Whether they were liable for the negligence of the contractor engaged by
them to extract the reservoir?

 The Decision by the Trial Court

The trial court held that the defendants were not aware of the broken filled-in
shaft of the abandoned mine which was the source of the flooding, and thus the
defendants were not held liable for any damage caused to the plaintiff. The trial
court, therefore, passed the judgment in favour of the Defendants. 

 The Decision by Exchequer Chamber

On the appeal filed by the plaintiffs in 1866, the case then was put through to
the Exchequer Chamber for its decision on the matter. The Chamber reversed the
decision made by the lower court and held that a ‘strict liability’ was imposed on
the defendants. However, in making this decision, the term ‘strict liability’ in that
period had no standing in the tort law. It did not fit into the tenants of Trespass,
Nuisance, Negligence, etc. Thereafter, Blackburn J compared the offence to the
offence of trespass involving cattle and dangerous animals and declared that any
individual who knowingly keeps a dangerous article on their land, must do so at
their own cost and consequence, and be prima facie answerable if such article causes any
damage whatsoever. 

 The Decision by the House of Lords

In 1868, when the defendants appealed to the House of Lords, the court
reaffirmed the judgment of the Chamber, but with some minor adjustments. Lord
Cairns ruled that the principle of Strict Liability as laid down by Blackburn J
should only be applied to the ‘non-natural’ use of one’s land, as distinguished from
‘any purpose’ as mentioned in the previous decision. Lord Cairns shifted focus
from the tendency of water to escape from the defendant’s land to the unnatural
use of the defendant’s land of setting up a reservoir near a coal mine. 

Strict Liability is applied in an event that harm occurs as a result of the

miscarriage of any lawful activity, that, considering its manner and place of use, is
unusual, extraordinary, or inappropriate. Therefore, by taking into account the
ratios stated in the Chamber and the House of Lords, we can state that for an act to
amount to strict liability, the following preconditions should be fulfilled:

1. The individual has brought something onto their land.

2. The individual has made a ‘non-natural’ utilization of such item on the

land.

3. The item was such as is likely to cause a nuisance if it escapes from the
said land.

4. The item did escape and caused damage and repercussions owing to sich
non-natural use of it on the land. 

RULE OF STRICT LIABILITY

In pursuance of breaking down the origin of absolute liability, a crucial leg
of this journey would be to understand the rule of ‘Strict Liability’. Absolute
Liability is often described as Strict Liability- (minus) the exceptions of Strict
Liability. The justification of such a formula would be to understand the concept of
Strict Liability at its core. The understanding of this principle was first garnered in
1868, in the House of Lords – “We think that the rule of the law is that the person
who for his own purposes brings on his lands 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.” This crucial judgment in Rylands v Fletcher is where both the
principles of ‘no-fault liability’ were established, and from thereon became
independent tenants of law.1

 ESSENTIALS OF STRICT LIABILITY

From the ratio decidendi of the above-mentioned case, as held in the Court of

Exchequer and the House of Lords, the rule of ‘Strict Liability’ was nurtured,
which then became a full-fledged legal principle, based on the prerequisites as
stated in the case of 1868. For ‘Strict Liability’ to be legally enforceable on an
action, the action has to fulfil certain characteristics, which make it eligible to be
classified as an act that would call for the imposition of strict liability. 2

 Dangerous Thing

The first requirement for this principle to be applicable is the presence of a

dangerous thing/item/object on the land.

 Escape of such dangerous thing

The second prerequisite for an act or action would be the escape of such
dangerous article, from the land whereon it is brought.In the case of Read v. Lyons
and Co., 3Read was an employee with the defendant company, which was an
ammunition manufacturing company. While she was working, a shell
manufactured by the company burst, and she suffered many injuries. It was held
that the defendant was not liable, because the dangerous item (i.e. the shell) did not

1
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=7183&context=penn_law_review

2
R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts (Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, 24th edn., 2017).
3
 [1945] KB 216
escape the premises of the defendant, and thus the principle was not applicable in
the situation. Therefore, the actual escape of the dangerous item from the premises
of its owner is required for the principal to apply.

 Non-Natural Use of Land

The third precondition of Strict Liability is the non-natural use of land.In Sochacki

v. Sas,4 the Court held that a fire in the fireplace is an ordinary use of the land and
if this fire spreads outside the premises, strict liability as a concept would not be
applicable therein. The supply of electricity through lines, cooking gas through
pipes, etc. are natural uses of land, but if an individual stores nitrous oxide in a
large quantity in his home, that would be considered as a non-natural use of his
land. Therefore, the use of the thing must be in such a manner, that it is not used on
that land in the ordinary course of life. 

 EXCEPTIONS TO STRICT LIABILITY

In pursuance of gaining a deep understanding of the concept of Absolute

Liability, a brief explanation of the exceptions of Strict Liability can help us study
the concept in an easier manner, since, as stated hereinabove, Absolute Liability is
the difference of Strict Liability and its exceptions.5

 Act of God

4
 [1947] All ER 344
5
Dr. S.R. Myneni, Law of Contract & Specific Relief,,  2nd Ed ,Asia book house.
  In Nicholas v. Marsland 6wherein the defendant Marsland built a dam on a
natural stream flowing into his own land, so as to create an artificial lake on his
land. However, the land experienced heavy rains which caused the dam walls to
give way to the pressure, thus washing away the bridge of the plaintiff. The court
held that the defendant was not strictly liable in this case, as there was no way that
Marsland could have predicted the severity of the rains and protected against it.

  Consent Of The Plaintiff/ Plaintiff’s own fault

‘Volenti non-fit injuria’, a phrase is often seen as an exception to tort law, is a

valid and accepted exception to Strict Liability as well.

 Act of Third Party

When the escape of the dangerous thing is caused by the acts of a Third Party, the
rule of Strict Liability does not apply. A stranger/third party in this context is
defined as a person who is not the servant, agent, or any other party in control of
the defendant. However, if the act of such a third party and/or stranger can be
reasonably predicted by the defendant, this exception shall not come into play. 

In Box v. Jubb7, the defendant owned a reservoir which overflowed as a

result of a blockage in the drain by a third party unknown to the defendant. The
court held that the defendant would not be liable for the damage caused to the
plaintiff since he could not reasonably predict such blockage.8
6
 (1876) 2 ExD 1
7
 LR 4 EX Div 76
8
Avtar Singh, Law of Contract & Specific Relief,11TH ED., Eastern Book
Company.
  Statutory Authority

In the presence of a prevailing statute that mandates the act which is being subject
to scrutiny, the rule of Strict Liability cannot be applied to such an act. In Green v.
Chelsea Co9., the defendants were mandated by statute to ensure a continuous flow
of water. However, a water pipe belonging to the company burst, thus flooding the
plaintiff’s premises with water, without any fault or negligence on the part of the
defendants. The courts held that the defendants were not liable as it was
performing its statutory duty and did not practice any negligence on its part. 

RULE OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

In the presence of the information mentioned hereinabove, it is now easier to

understand the concept of Absolute Liability being the difference of Strict Liability
and its exceptions. Strict Liability is the rule which makes any person owning a
hazardous or dangerous object on his land liable for any damage caused, due to the
escape of such object, irrespective of the individual’s intent in causing such
damage or harm. Strict liability had the exceptions, stating that in case such escape
occurred due to the Act of God, an act of Third Party, an act of the Plaintiff, or in
pursuance of a statutory obligation, the liability would not apply. 

 ORIGIN OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY IN INDIA 

In the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, the court established the principle of Strict

Liability which was seen as a solid and concrete concept needing no further
analysis in India. The law of the land at that time was not adept to hold the
defendant liable in this case, and therefore Blackburn J implemented the principle
of Strict Liability, which was adjusted by Lords Cairns later to only include those
9
(1894) 70 LT 547 
actions and damages which were attributed to the non-natural use of land. Pursuant
to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and the Oleum Gas Leak, the Indian Judiciary found it
imperative to initiate a concept to address such rare occurrences, wherein the
defendant should have no exception in taking responsibility for the action that
caused such large-scale damages.

Therefore, in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India10, the Indian Judiciary,
under the guidance of Justice Bhagwati, finally introduced the concept of Absolute
Liability as being applicable in situations such as those of the case. 

 CHANGES IN THE LAW

The law should keep growing to include and be at pace with the society’s
ever-changing dynamic economic, technological, and social standing. The court
further held that “we are of the view that an enterprise which is engaged in a
hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the
health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the
surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to
ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently
dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken and if any harm results
on account of such activity, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate
for such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken
all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its
part.” 

10
1987 SCR (1) 819
  ESSENTIALS OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

The essentials of Absolute Liability are similar to the understanding of Strict

Liability, in the sense that it too requires the preconditions of a dangerous thing,
the escape of such dangerous things, and damage caused due to the escape of such
dangerous things. 11
However, as required under Strict Liability, the essential of
‘Non-natural use of land’ is not a prerequisite to the rule of Absolute Liability.
Blackburn J stated in the Chamber hearing of Rylands v. Fletcher, the escape of a
substance from any kind of its use would make the defendant liable, which was
later changed to only the ‘non-natural use’ of the land by Lord Cairns while
addressing Strict Liability in the House of Lords. In taking Blackburn J’s
conception further, absolute liability too, does not differentiate on the use of the
land as natural or non-natural, while determining its applicability. Therefore the
essentials of Absolute Liability are as follows:

1. Dangerous Thing

2. Escape 

3. Hazardous or inherently dangerous substance: The major distinguishing

factor in the essentials of Absolute Liability is the presence of a
hazardous or inherently dangerous substance on the land. This means that
if the defendant has a hazardous substance on his land, no matter what its
use, such a defendant would be absolutely liable if such substance escapes
his premises. The liability does not lie in the use of an object or thing, but
in the nature of such an object or thing. Hazardous defined under Section
2 of the Public Liability Insurance Act 1991, is ‘any substance or
preparation which is defined as hazardous substance under

11
R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts (Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, 24th edn., 2017).
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986), and exceeding such
quantity as may be specified, by notification, by the Central
Government’. This is the imperative distinguishing factor that validates
the application of Absolute Liability. 
 CONCLUSION
Ryland vs. Fletcher played a great role in deciding owners’ liability when he
is bringing any dangerous object in his premises. It was necessary to have a law
that could increase the duty of the owner. So that he can be more careful while
bringing any dangerous object in his premises. The world is progressing very fast
and in this era of industrialization, privatisation and globalization disputes
regarding the duty of care are burgeoning rapidly so there was a need for a law that
could solve these problems. This was done in this case. In the context of India, this
Rule of strict liability paved the way for ‘The Rule of Absolute Liability’ in India.
 REFERENCE
 Avtar Singh, Law of Contract & Specific Relief,11TH ED., Eastern Book
Company.
  Dr. S.R. Myneni, Law of Contract & Specific Relief,,  2nd Ed ,Asia book
house.
 Ritu Gupta, Law of Contract & Specific Relief, 1st ed, Lexis Nexis.
  R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts (Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, 24th edn.,
2017).