Law of Torts

MC Mehta vs Kamal Nath

• “pollution is a civil wrong. By its very nature, it
is a tort committed against the community as
a whole. A person, therefore, who is guilty of
causing pollution has to pay damages for
restoration of the environment and ecology..
In addition to damages aforesaid, the person
guilty of causing pollution can also be held
liable to pay exemplary damages so that it
may act as a deterrent for others.”
 Tort of nuisance and environmental
pollution
• Deepest doctrinal roots of modern envt law
are found in the common law principles of
nuisance.
• Nuisance means “an unlawful interference
with the use and enjoyment of land or
property, or some right over, or in connection
with it.”
• Anything that annoys, hurts or that which is
offensive.
 Nuisance
• Two categories of nuisance :
• 1. Public
• 2. Private
• Public nuisance is a crime under IPC (S. 268-
291) and CrPC (S. 133-144)
 Material factors in determination of
nuisance :
• 1. degree of intensity
• 2. duration
• 3. locality
• 4. the mode of using the property
 Bamford vs. Turnley (1862)
• The court of Exchequer Chamber declared
that anything which lessens the comfort or
endangers the health or safety of a neighbor
must be an actionable nuisance.
• It was a case where the plaintiff complained of
smoke and smell from the burning of bricks by
the defendant.
 MC Mehta vs UOI (River Ganga
Pollution Case )
• The Supreme Court declared that the nuisance
caused by the pollution of River Ganga is a
public nuisance, which is widespread in range
and indiscriminate in effect. Since this affects
the community at large, one can move the
court through a PIL.
 Samaj Parivartan Samudaya vs.
Karnatka
• Illegal mining at large scale and overburden
dumps, roads, offices, etc, outside the
sanctioned leave area were named as “mass
tort” by the Supreme Court.
• The court also ordered for the compensatory
payment for damage to the envt by illegal
mining.
 Ram Rattan vs. Munna Lal
• Noisy locality may not be an actionable
nuisance but substantial increase may cause
nuisance if it interferes with the ordinary
comfort of human existence.
• Addition of two power looms in a locality
devoted to noisy trades, such as the printing
and allied trades, may constitute an
actionable wrong entitling an occupier of an
adjoining residence to an injunction.
• PA Jacob vs Supt of Police
• The court accepted a PIL even when there is a
likelihood of air and noise pollution or
apprehended nuisance.
 Ram Baj Singh vs Babulal ( Impt.)
• Individual can claim damages from a person
for causing public nuisance if he can prove
some “special damage” and a “substantial
injury” from such nuisance to him.
• The Plaintiff-appellant, a medical practioner,
constructed a consulting chamber opposite
the brick grinding machine erected by the
defendant-respondent.
• There was a distance of 40 feet bw the two and a
road intervened bw the grinding machine and the
consulting chamber.
• The plaintiff alleged that the machine generated
dust which polluted the atmosphere and entered
the consulting chamber.
• The court held the defendant liable as the facts
proved that the plaintiff could prove “special
damage.”
• In determining substantial injury, the test is of
a reasonable person.
• The expression doesnot take into account the
susceptibilities of a hypersensistive person.
 Remedies
• 1. Abatement: removal of nuisance
• 2. Damages
• 3. Injunction – s. 36-42 of Specific Relief Act,
1963 and CPC
 Trespass
• Closely related to nuisance
• Occasionally invoked in environmental cases.
• Requires an intentional invasion of the
Plaintiff’s interest in the exclusive possession
of property.
• No substantial injury needs to be shown.
• “intentional unprivileged physical entry”
Fairview Farms vs. Reynolds Metals Co.
• The court held that airborne liquids and solids
deposited upon Fairview’s land constituted
trespass and allowed damages for a six year
period.
 Negligence
• Another specific tort which can help in
preventing environmental pollution.
• Negligence is the failure to exercise that care
which the circumstances demand in any given
situation.
•
 Donoghue vs Stevenson
• Where there is a duty to take care, reasonable
care must be taken which can be foreseen to
be likely to cause physical injury to person or
property.
 Degree of care
• Differs from case to case and circumstances to
circumstances.
• Causal relationship must be shown by the
plaintiff bw the negligence of the defendant
and the injury to the plaintiff.
 Mukesh Textile Mills vs HR
Subramanya Sastry (1987)
• Appellant had a sugar factory and used to
store molasses in tanks, close to respondent’s
land separated by a water channel.
• One tank was made of mud and it collapsed
and it emptied in the water channel.
• Caused damage to paddy crops of the Plaintiff,
• The court based the liability of the defendant
on two grounds :
• 1. one who had stored large quantities of
molasses in the mud tank had the “duty to
take reasonable care” in the matters of
maintenance.
• 2. non-natural use of land
Strict liability and absolute liability
• Rylands vs. Fletcher
• Blackburn J propounded this theory as :
• “the person who for his own purpose brings
on his land and collects and keeps there
anything likely to do a mischief if it escapes,
must keep it 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.”
 Absolute Liability
• Rejecting the theory of strict liability as
propounded in Rylands vs. Fletcher
• The Supreme Court in MC Mehta vs. UOI (Oleum
Gas Leak Case) declared
• That we have to develop our own law and if we
find that it is necessary to construct a new
principle of liability to deal with unusual
situation..on account of hazardous or inherently
dangerous industry…we should not hesitate to
evolve principle of liability though such principle
might have been evolved in England.
• Absolute and non-delegable duty.
• Highest standards of security.
• Measure of compensation must be co-related
to the magnitude and capacity of the
enterprise because such compensation must
have a deterrent effect.
 Union Carbide Corp. vs UOI
• Rangnath Mishra J approved this observation
of Absolute Liability
• But the court refused the principle of
“damages be proportionate to the superiority
of the offence”
• The court held that the Union Carbide Corp.
would also compensate for the injuries to
unborn children whose congenital defects
were traceable to MIC toxicity.
 Conclusion
• Law of Nuisance :
• 1. Public Nuisance :some special injury needs to
be proved
• 2. Private Nuisance : the individuals don’t take
interest in coming to the courts.
• Trespass:
• Direct physical interference is required.
• Environmental degradation is usually indirect in
its nature and effects.
• Negligence:
• 1. casual connection is to be proved bw the
negligent act and the plaintiff’s injury, and
that it was foreseeable by the defendant.
• 2. standard of care is seriously affected by the
state of scientific knowledge as to causes and
effects of air and water pollution.