DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

TORTS

SUBMITTED TO – SUBMITTED BY –
PROF. (MS.) ANKITA YADAV SANIDHYA BAJPAI
PROFESSOR Enrollment No.-210101129
(LAW) B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University 2nd Semester, Section ‘B’

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I have taken a lot of effort for this project “STRICT LIABILITY”. However, this would have
not been possible without the kind support and help of many individuals. I would like to
express my sincere thanks to all of them.

I express my deep gratitude to my teacher for the subject (MS.) ANKITA YADAV for giving
me her exemplary guidance, monitoring, and constant encouragement throughout the project.

I would like to express my gratitude towards my parents and members of RMLNLU for their
kind support and encouragement which helped me in the completion of this project.

My thanks and appreciations also go to my colleagues in developing the project and people
who willingly helped me out with their abilities.

DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the project “STRICT LIABILITY” submitted by me to Dr. Ram
Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh in partial fulfillment
requirement for the award of the degree of B.A.L.L.B (Hons.) is a record of bonafide project
work carried out by me under the guidance of (MS.) ANKITA YADAV.

I further declare that the work reported in this project has not been submitted, and will not be
submitted either in part or in full, for the award of any other degree or diploma in this
institute or any other university.

SANIDHYA BAJPAI
 TABLE OF CONTENT

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 5
MEANING AND SCOPE OF RULE OF STRICT LIABILITY ............................................ 6
STRICT LIABILITY AS APPLIED TO CRIMINAL LAW .................................................. 7
STRICT LIABILITY AS APPLIED TO TORT LAW ........................................................... 7
ESSENTIALS FOR THE APPLICATION OF RULE OF STRICT LIABILITY ................... 8
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE ............................................................................................ 9
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE .................................................................................. 11
INDIAN POSITION ........................................................................................................... 13
LANDMARK CASES ........................................................................................................ 14
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 16
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 17
 INTRODUCTION

There are circumstances when a person may be held accountable for harm even if he was not
negligent in causing it, or even if he had no intention of doing so, or even if he made some
proactive attempts to avoid it. To put it another way, the law recognizes 'no fault'
responsibility on occasion.

Under tort law, the strict liability principle is an enormously significant notion. The
foundation of this notion is the intrinsic harm that some behaviours can cause. For example,
if deadly gases are released, as was the case in the Bhopal Gas Disaster, this rule will apply.

The essential idea of tort compensation is that it is based on the amount to which a person
takes safeguards.

As a result, the law may exclude someone from paying damages if he takes several efforts to
avoid certain injury. Strict liability, on the other hand, is exempt from this rule.

People are required to pay compensation for damages even if they are not at fault under the
strict responsibility rule. In other words, even if someone take all the required safeguards,
they must compensate victims. In fact, many licences that allow such operations contain this
idea as a requirement.
 MEANING AND SCOPE OF RULE OF STRICT LIABILITY

In the case of Rylands v. Flecther, the House of Lords laid down the rule recognizing 'No
fault' liability.

The rule recognised 'Strict Liability,' which meant that even if the defendant was not
negligent, or rather, even if the defendant did not willfully cause the harm or was cautious, he
might still be held accountable.

In Rylands v. Fletcher, the defendant had a reservoir built on his land by independent
contractors to supply water to his mill. There were ancient disused shafts beneath the
reservoir's site that the contractors failed to notice and hence did not shut. When the reservoir
was full, the water broke through the shafts and swamped the plaintiff's coal mines on
adjacent property. The defendant was unaware of the shafts and therefore not negligent,
despite the fact that the independent contractors were. Despite the fact that the defendant was
not negligent, he was held accountable.

According to the rule, if a person takes a dangerous thing onto his land and keeps it there, i.e.,
a thing that is likely to create mischief if it escapes, he is prima facie liable for the damage
caused by its escape, even though he was not negligent in keeping it there. The liability arises
not because of any fault or negligence on the part of the person, but because he kept
something harmful on his property and it escaped and caused damage.

Since in such a case the liability arises even without any negligence on the part of the
defendant, it is known as the rule of Strict Liability.
 STRICT LIABILITY AS APPLIED TO CRIMINAL LAW

Strict liability is usually limited to minor violations under criminal law. Strict responsibility is
one of five possible mentes reae (mental states) that a defendant can have while committing a
crime, according to criminal law. "Acting deliberately," "acting purposefully," "acting with
recklessness," and "acting with neglect" are the other four. The mens rea of strict liability is
usually punished more lightly than the other four mentes reae. In most criminal cases, the
defendant's knowledge of his actions does not eliminate a strict liability mens rea (for
example, being in possession of drugs will typically result in criminal liability, regardless of
whether the defendant knows that he is in possession of the drugs).

STRICT LIABILITY AS APPLIED TO TORT LAW

Possession of specific animals and excessively risky actions are two major categories of
conduct for which a plaintiff can be found strictly accountable in tort law. There is also a sub-
category of torts known as strict products liability that occurs when a defective product for
which an appropriate defendant is responsible causes injury to an appropriate plaintiff.
 ESSENTIALS FOR THE APPLICATION OF RULE OF STRICT
LIABILITY

1) Dangerous thing

The obligation for a thing escaping from one's land arises under this rule if the thing
collected was a dangerous thing, i.e., a thing likely to cause mischief if it escapes. The
thing so collected in Rylands v. Fletcher was a big body of water.

2) Escape

The entity causing the damage must also escape to a location outside the defendant's
occupation and control in order for the Rylands v. Fletcher rule to apply. Thus, if the
branches of a dangerous tree are projected onto the neighbor's land, this constitutes an
escape, and if livestock lawfully present on the neighbor's land are poisoned by eating the
tree's leaves, the defendant will be held accountable under the rule. 10 The defendant, on
the other hand, cannot be held accountable if the plaintiff's horse crosses the boundary
and dies from chewing the leaves of a deadly tree there, because there is no escape of
vegetation in this scenario.

3) Non-natural use of land

In Rylands v. Fletcher, water collected in such a large quantity in the reservoir was
deemed a non-natural use of land. 'Natural use' refers to keeping water for everyday
household purposes.

It "must be some specific use bringing with it heightened hazard to others, and must not
simply be the ordinary use of land or such a use as is suited for the general benefit of the
society" for the use to be non-natural.
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE

1) Plaintiff's own default

In Rylands v. Fletcher, damage caused by the plaintiff's own default was considered a
good defence. The plaintiff cannot sue the defendant for damages produced by his own
intrusion into the defendant's property. The plaintiff's horse intruded into the defendant's
land and died after nibbling the leaves of a deadly tree there in Ponting v. Noakes. The
defendant was found not liable since the horse's trespass into the defendant's land would
not have caused any damage.

2) Act of God

Under Blackburn, J.'s rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, an act of God or vis major was also
deemed a defense to an action. According to the definition of an act of God”
Circumstances which no human foresight can prevent, and of which human prudence is
not required to recognize the possibility,".

If the escape was unexpected and occurred due to supernatural forces without human
intervention, the act of God defense can be invoked.

3) Consent of the plaintiff

In the case of volenti non fit injuria, i.e., where the plaintiff has consented to the
accumulation of the dangerous thing on the defendant's land, the liability under the rule
Rylands v. Fletcher does not arise. Such consent is implied where the source of danger is
for the 'common benefit’ of both the plaintiff and the defendant.

4) Act of third party

The defendant will not be held accountable under this rule if the harm was caused by the
act of a stranger who is neither the defendant's servant nor under the defendant's control.
Thus, in Box v. Jabb, where the defendant's reservoir overflow was caused by strangers
blocking a drain, the defendant was found not liable.
 INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

In the United Kingdom the landmark case of Rylands v. Fletcher paved the way for strict
liability, which may require that a person bring something onto his property that may
cause harm if it fled and that its usage was unnatural. Although not unambiguous, the
meaning of non-natural focuses on the development of an extremely high danger.
Significantly, neither of two leading strict liability cases suggests that if an action was
widespread, it would be immune from strict liability, and authoritative treatises on
English tort law make no reference of an analogue to the uncommon activity requirement.

In United States in order to impose strict liability, a court must find that (i) the injurer’s
activity generates a highly significant danger, even when undertaken with reasonable
care; and (ii) the injurer’s activity is uncommon.

In Europe, many national legislative frameworks limit strict liability to specific sources of
danger identified by statute. This in turn leads to unequal treatment of ostensibly similar
threats, because some fundamentally risky situations are covered by legislatively
mandated instances while others are not. As a result, European academics advocate for
the inclusion of a "generic clause" in the strict liability context. On the one hand, limiting
the application of statutory sources of strict liability is sought, while on the other hand,
permitting unconstrained judicial policymaking to shape strict liability by resorting to a
"generic provision" is sought.
The Learned Hand Test

Learned Hand's test for fault defines the defendant's duty of care as a function of three
variables: (1) the probability that the accident occur, (2) the gravity of the injury which
will be suffered if the accident does occur, and (3) the burden of precautions adequate to
prevent such accidents. If the cost to the defendant of avoiding the accident would have
been less than the cost of the accident, discounted by the probability of its occurrence, the
defendant's failure to avoid the accident is termed negligence.
 INDIAN POSITION

The strict liability rule applies in India just as much as it does in England. There has,
however, been an acknowledgment of some deviation in both directions, i.e., in the
extension of the scope of the rule of strict liability as well as the limitation of its scope.

The Indian courts after analyzing recognized the need to modify the rule of strict liability,
and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the mc Mehta case stated that “Moreover the principle
so established in Ryland v. Fletcher of strict liability cannot be used in the modern world,
as the very principle was evolved in the 19th century, and in the period when the
industrial revolution has just begun, this two-century-old principle of tortuous liability
cannot be taken as it is in the modern world without modifications”.

Our Supreme Court determined that the Rylands v. Fletcher rule was no longer
appropriate in today's world of science and technology. As a result, the rule of absolute
liability took its place.
 LANDMARK CASES

Rylands v. Fletcher1, lays down a rule of strict liability for harm caused by escapes from
land applied to exceptionally hazardous purposes.

The Court found the defendant to have created the reservoir at his own expense, and, if an
accident occurs, the defendant is responsible for the accident and escape of the material.

MC Mehta v. Union of India2, if the tight risk control established in Rylands v. Fletcher
was tied to such situations, then those who had built up "hazardous and dangerous"
companies in and around densely inhabited areas may argue that they were not
responsible for the destruction wrought by asserting specific exceptions. "Absolute
Liability," published by then-Chairman of the Supreme Court of India PN Bhagwati, was
subsequently developed by the Supreme Court."

In Madras Railway Co. v. Zamindar3, it has been held by the Privy Council that because
of peculiar Indian conditions, the escape of water collected for agricultural purposes may
not be subject to strict liability. The owner on whose land such water is collected is liable
only if he has not taken due care. In this case, there was escape of water as a consequence
of bursting of two ancient tanks situated on the respondent's zamindari. The escaping
water caused damage to the appellants' property and three of the railway bridges were
destroyed. It was held that under these circumstances, the rule in Rylands v, Fletcher was
not applicable and as the zamindar was not negligent, he was not liable for the damage
caused by the overflowing water.

1
(1868) LR 3 HL 330
2
A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1086
3
(1974) 1 I.A. 364 (P.C.).
 In Minu B. Mehta v. Balakrishna4, the supreme has held that the liability of the owner or
the insurer of the vehicle could not arise unless there was negligence on the part of the
owner or the driver of the vehicle.

In Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Co.5, the defendant Co. had a statutory duty to maintain
continuous supply of water. A main belonging to the company burst without any
negligence on its part, as a consequence of which the plaintiff's premises were flooded
with water. It was held that the company was not liable as the company was engaged in
performing a statutory duty

4
A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1248.
5
(1894) 70 L.T. 547.
 CONCLUSION

In legislation, strict liability is a standard of responsibility which may apply in a criminal

When a person is found to be at fault, he is made a subject. In any case, the guiding
concept governing these two principles is that a person can be put in danger even if he is
not at fault. The concepts of "no-fault liability" are what they're called. Under this
principle, the liable individual may or may not have committed the act, but he will be
responsible for the harm caused as a result of the act. It can be concluded that there are a
few exceptions to strict liability where the respondent would not be held accountable.

For the most part a person are responsible for their fault and his is liable for the unlawful
act they committed. However, there is a exception in “no-fault liability’ principle where
you can be made liable without any fault. Since the princle make it clear that anyone who
keeps a harmful object at his premises and if that object escapes and acauses harm, the
person is strictly liable even if he took certain actions to prevent the harm, as the criteria
to make him is liable is harm caused due to escape of the harmful or hazardous object.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236880181_Strict_Liability_in_Contemporary_
European_Codification_Torn_Between_Objects_Activities_and_Their_Risks_Georgetow
n_Journal_of_International_Law_GJIL_22013_pp_609-640_with_Willem_van_Boom.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_liability.

https://lawshelf.com/shortvideoscontentview/strict-liability-in-tort-law.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/724030.