Scribd
Upload
16 views3 pages

Strict Absolute Liability

Strict abosulte liability

Uploaded by

jayasaini2175
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
16 views3 pages

Strict Absolute Liability

Strict abosulte liability

Uploaded by

jayasaini2175
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Rylands V/S Fletcher

Facts: The plaintiff and defendant were neighbouring property owners. The
defendant, a mill owner hired independent contractors for the construction of
a water reservoir on his land. While working, the contractors came across
passages under the reservoir which was filled loosely only with Earth and
Marl, but they chose to ignore the problem. Once the reservoir was full, water
broke through these shafts, flooding the coal mine property owned by the
plaintiff causing considerable damage. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a suit
against the defendant to recover his lost gains.

Issue
The issue in Rylands V/S Fletcher the case is if the defendant would be held
liable for an act executed by another.

Judgement:
Regardless of the defendant's plea, the House of Lords considers the
respondent answerable for all harms endured in the mine. As per the law
forced on this case, if an individual submits any activity with a conceivably
unsafe medication on their reason, the person in question will be expected to
take responsibility for any mischief caused by the spillage of the said
material, if it got away because of their ineptitude.

According to the rule of absolute liability, if any person is engaged in an


inherently dangerous or hazardous activity, and if any harm is caused to any
person due to any accident which occurred during carrying out such
inherently dangerous and hazardous activity, then the person who is carrying
out such activity will be held absolutely liable. The exception to the strict
liability rule also wouldn’t be considered.

The concept of Absolute liability was also transformed in the same manner
where economic activities and industrialization in today's frame is far
different from what it was in the past. So the principle of No Fault Liabilit' was
introduced which is the base for the absolute liability concept. In India, the
need for such a principle arose out of unfortunate tragic incidents like Bhopal
Gas Leak Case' and 'Oleum Gas Leak case where the Supreme Court of India
stepped in and started to hold this principle of absolute liability which
actually evolved from the principle of No Fault liability in English law

The rule laid down in the case of MC Mehta v UOI was also followed by the
Supreme Court while deciding the case of Bhopal Gas Tragedy case. To
ensure that victims of such accidents get quick relief through insurance, the
Indian Legislature passed the Public Liability Insurance Act in the year 1991.

The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991


This act was introduced with the aim of providing immediate relief to people
who are victims of accidents in which handling of hazardous substances is
involved. The main focus of the Act is to create a public liability insurance
fund which can be used to compensate tThe Act states that any person who
is carrying out inherently dangerous or hazardous activities should have
insurances and policies in place where he will be insured against liability to
provide compensation to the victims in case any accident takes place, and
some injury occurs. This liability is based on the principle of “no fault liability”
or in other words, the rule of strict liability and absolute liability. Inherently
dangerous or hazardous substance covers under its scope any mixture,
preparation or substance which because of its properties can cause serious
harm to human beings, animals, plants, property or the environment. If any
substance is inherently dangerous or hazardous due to its handling also, then
also the absolute liability of the defendant arises

When an organization engages in a hazardous or fundamentally unsafe


practice that causes injury to someone as a result of an event that occurs
while the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is being carried out. This
makes the company fully liable to pay all people who are harmed as a result
of the crash, and that responsibility is not subject to any of the exceptions
then it comes under absolute liability.

Advancement Of Absolute Liability In India

In India, the rule of strict liability is an accepted doctrine, though rarely


enforced in courts. According to the Supreme court's ruling in the case of M.C
Mehta v. Union of India, the 19th-century rule of strict liability was found to
be inadequate to match these modern times due to the growing
industrialization lending aid to developmental projects.

As the strict liability rule was subject to many exceptions, the court felt that
there was hardly any rule left and hence this principle was replaced with the
absolute liability rule. Ironically, the rule of absolute liability was stricter than
strict liability as it entailed no exception.

This rule clearly holds that if an enterprise engages in a hazardous activity


and this activity results in harm to anyone, the corporation would be held
wholly responsible. Thereby, provoking the non-delegable and absolute
nature of this principle

Absolute Liability Vs. Strict Liability


1. The magnitude of the destruction: In absolute liability, the destruction is mass
destruction, while in strict liability, this destruction is limited to an extent.

2. Defence against the Tort: In Absolute Liability, there is no defence whereas, in


strict liability, the tortfeasor can set the defence(the act of God is one of
them).

3. The doctrine of strict liability has some exceptions which can be taken into
consideration. Act of God, the act of the third party etc. are these exceptions
and can be applied if any of this is true in the case of the defendant whereas
in the case of absolute liability there is nothing like exception provided to the
industries involved in activities of the hazardous substance.

4. In absolute liability, the degree of damages depends on the greatness,


capacity and financial capability of the company or the organization which
caused the damage, whereas, in strict liability, compensation has to be paid
as per the nature and amount of damage caused.

5. According to the principle of absolute liability, the element of escape is not


crucial. In other words, the rule of absolute liability should be applied to those
injured in the premise and person outside, which is not in the case of strict
liability

You might also like