Absolute and Strict Liability

III.
ABSOLUTE AND STRICT LIABILITY
Strict Liability
The definition of strict liability was first adopted in the late 1800s. It arose from the principle
of incompetence, which commonly applies to reckless conduct. It entails a duty of
responsibility to one's neighbours, with a violation of that duty resulting in harm to the
neighbours. When the defendant is found to be negligent, he or she is held liable to pay the
complainant for the damages incurred. In contrast, under absolute liability, the defendant is
found liable regardless of whether or not he was negligent. 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.
Essential Conditions To Strict Liability
 Dangerous Thing
The strict liability rule applies to 'Anything that can do mischief if it escapes.' The essential
feature that serves as the basis of applicability is that the word 'anything' refers to substances
accumulated by the defendant and brought by him to his property and not naturally occurring
substances. The Courts usually use a fact-based test in determining the 'dangerous thing' to
form an analysis as to whether the thing is likely to cause danger or mischief if it escaped into
the land's surroundings. strict liability has three categories that include animals both owned or
possessed abnormally dangerous activities, and product liability. Things like explosives,
noxious fumes, electricity, flag poles, etc are some examples considered to be dangerous things.
 Unnatural land use
The strict liability rule will apply if the defendant collects and operates any substance likely to
cause mischief if it escapes. The storage of large quantities of dangerous materials, the casual
way of its maintenance, and the character of the neighbourhood are characters that go into
circumstantial evidence depending on which liability may be owed.
23
 Escape
The mere evidence of a 'dangerous thing' is not enough to prove the defendant is liable, that
substance must escape from the premises of the defendant to another's and inflict ultra
hazardous harm to the victim. The word 'escape' denotes to signify an escape from the place of
the defendant or had control or owe it to a place which is outside his control or occupation.
Defences Under Strict Liability Rule
 Claimant's default
The defendant cannot be held liable due to damage caused to the plaintiff as a result of the
latter's default. In fact, in 'Rylands v. Fletcher' 3itself, it was suggested that there would be no
liability under the rule if the escape was due to the plaintiff's fault. In Ponting v. Noakes a horse
owned by the claimant wandered into the defendant's land and partook leaves of a poisonous
tree. The court held that the plaintiff was denied the benefit of the strict liability rule as the
horse intruded into the defendant's premises.
 Volenti Non-Fit Injuria
Where the claimant has impliedly or expressly consented with the defendant to bear the burden
of the harmful situation together, the defendant cannot be held liable for the escape in substance
and resulted in harm, unless the plaintiff succeeds to prove lack of due care or negligence on
the side of the defendant. As in the case of, Dunne v. North West Gas Board the plaintiffs
brought an action against the Gas Board after the gas had escaped from a rupture in the water
main leading to five casualties. The defendant was not held liable as it was a consented act and
the Gas Board had not accumulated the substance for its own benefit.
 Act of God (Vis Major)
Vis Major or the Act of God is considered as an event free from human intervention. In these
circumstances, the defendant will not shoulder responsibility if he can prove that human
foresight and prudence could not have recognized the possibility of such a harmful outcome.
24
 Act of Third Party
If damage is suffered by a plaintiff due to an unforeseeable act of a stranger, the defendant shall
not be held liable and the burden of proof shall remain with him to prove the same. In Box v.
Jubb, the defendant's reservoir was overrun due to the deliberate act of the third party emptying
his own reservoir into theirs. Moreover, if the defendant fails to take due care against an action
that was forcible then the principle of negligence will be applied and the person will be held
under that and will be held negligent.
 Statutory Authority
Every so often, the authority charged with providing a service to society is exempted from
liability if they are not found negligent. In the ruling Greene v. Chelsa Waterworks and Co, the
court held that no company was not liable in the event of the burst in the main pipe as it was
the duty of the defendant to maintain the main supply of water.
Absolute Liability
Law should be dynamic and keep changing according to the needs of the modern world. It
won't be appropriate to use centuries-old principles and laws on present cases and incidents as
the world are changing or improving in terms of technology, economic activities, behaviour,
culture and overall at all aspects. 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. Absolute liability can be derived as, when an industry or enterprise
is involved in an inherently dangerous activity or using hazardous substances and deriving
commercial benefit out of them, and such an activity is capable of causing any damage, then
the company officials will be absolutely liable to pay compensation to the aggrieved parties
without any defence. They cannot plead that there was no negligence on their part and
reasonable care was taken to prevent such an accident In case of Absolute liability, they neither
plead defences like 'Act Of God' nor ' Act of Stranger which can be done in case of strict
liability. This defense component primarily differentiate absolute liability from strict liability.
25

Absolute and Strict Liability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Absolute and Strict Liability

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Absolute and Strict Liability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

III.

ABSOLUTE AND STRICT LIABILITY

Essential Conditions To Strict Liability

 Unnatural land use

Defences Under Strict Liability Rule

 Volenti Non-Fit Injuria

 Act of God (Vis Major)

You might also like