Name- Anurag Shanker

Roll no- 2382021

Class- BBA LLB (A)
Name of the topic- Strict Liability

To be submitted to- Prof. Shreya Chatterjee

 Strict Liability
The concept of strict liability was incepted by Justice Blackburn in the case of Rylands v
Fletcher1, although he named the liability as “Absolute Liability”, Winfield corrected it as
“Strict Liability”/
Before discussing about the concept of Strict liability, first we have to discuss about Ryland
vs Fletcher.
The legal case Rylands v Fletcher (1868) represents a significant ruling in English tort law,
introducing a new concept of strict liability. This case greatly influenced the evolution of tort
law by establishing a unique type of liability that does not necessitate demonstrating
negligence. The principle established in this case is frequently regarded as a cornerstone of
contemporary environmental and land-use legislation.

Context of the Case

The situation emerged in the 1860s when Thomas Fletcher, a mill operator, arranged for the
construction of a reservoir on his property to provide water for his mill. During the
construction of the reservoir, the contractors did not adequately seal the old mine shafts
located on the property. These shafts linked to a system of subterranean passages that directed
to the adjacent land owned by John Rylands. As the reservoir filled, water surged through the
aged shafts, inundating Rylands' mine. 2

Rylands initiated a lawsuit against Fletcher, asserting that he ought to be responsible for the
harm done to his property. Fletcher, conversely, contended that he bore no responsibility
because he had not been careless in building the reservoir; the task had been performed by
skilled independent contractors.
Decision of the Court
The House of Lords upheld the principle that when a person brings something potentially
dangerous onto their land, they must be responsible for any damage it causes if it escapes,
regardless of intent or negligence. The court's reasoning was largely shaped by the idea that
those who engage in activities involving inherently risky materials should bear the
consequences of any harm caused to others, even if the escape was unintended.

The concept of Strict Liability basically makes a person liable if he keeps hazardous
substance in his premise and due to the escape of the same, damage has happened. There are
some essentials to establish the liability under Strict Liability such as:
1. Dangerous Things- Now what is dangerous thing is itself a question and the answer is
that anything can be a dangerous thing given that if it escapes it is likely to cause
1
LR 3 HL 330
2
Rylands & Fletcher. (2021). STRICT LIABILITY. In STRICT LIABILITY.
https://www.lkouniv.ac.in/site/writereaddata/siteContent/202004171019385287satish_chandra_law_RULE_O
F_STRICT_LIABILITY.pdf
 damage. A box of matchsticks or a glass of water cannot say to be dangerous things
but a million matchsticks or a reservoir of water can be termed as Dangerous things
because it is capable of causing damage. There is an exception to this which was
established in Cambridge Water Case 3 that if the nature of the substance is
scientifically unknown then even if it escapes and cause damage, the defendant cannot
be held liable. Some common dangerous things are: fire; gas blasting and munitions,
electricity, oil and Petrol, noxious fumes; colliery spoil, rusty wire from a decayed
fence, vibrations; poisonous vegetation. The main criteria to determine whether a
substance is dangerous or not is that if it escape it is likely to cause damage.

2. Escape- It can be defined as escape from a place where defendant has occupation or
control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control4.In the case of
Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd5, where the claimant, working as an inspector of munitions
for the Ministry of Supply at the defendants' munitions factory, sustained injuries due
to a shell explosion during its manufacturing process. It was acknowledged that high-
explosive shells are inherently dangerous. However, the defendants were found not
liable, as there was no claim of negligence, and the rule in *Rylands v. Fletcher* did
not apply since the harmful object had not "escaped" from their control.

3. Non-Natural use of land- It means some special use of land bringing with it increased
danger to others and not merely ordinary use of land When the term “non-natural” is
to be considered, it should be kept in mind that there must be some special use which
increases the danger to others. The concept of non-natural use is flexible
Consideration of time, place, surroundings, circumstances and purpose, all enter in
determination of the question whether a particular use is natural or non-natural

In the case of Case law: M Madhappa v/s K Kariappa Where the Defendant set fire to
his land without taking necessary precaution to prevent the same from spreading into
the lands in the neighbourhood, it was held that he was liable for any damage caused
to those lands.

4. Damage- Damage is an important essential to claim the compensation under Strict

Liability. There are some points to note:
 Actual Damage Occurred: The claimant must demonstrate that the escape of a
dangerous substance (e.g., water, chemicals, fire) directly caused harm to their
property or person. Without tangible damage, strict liability does not apply.
 Connection to the Defendant’s Actions: The damage must be a result of a
substance or activity that the defendant introduced to their land, which then escaped
and caused harm.
 Non-Natural Use: The damage typically must arise from a “non-natural” use of the
land, meaning it involves something that increases the risk to others beyond ordinary
land use.6

3
Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Countries Leather Plc [1994] 2 A.C. 264.
4
Winfield, P. H. (1971). Winfield and Jolowicz on tort.
http://www.gbv.de/dms/spk/sbb/recht/toc/29323101X.pdf
5
[1947] A.C. 156; Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61; [2004] 2
A.C. 1 at [9], [34], [77].
There are also some defence which the defendant can take to avoid the liability such sa:

Defences under Strict Liability

1. Consent of the claimant: The rule is like that if the claimant has explicitly or
implicitly agreed to the existence of the danger source and the defendant has not been
negligent, the defendant is not responsible7, this also illustrate the general defence of
volenti non fit injuria. The primary use of the principle of implied consent occurs in
situations where various floors within a single building are occupied by different
tenants, such as when a tenant on a lower floor experiences damage due to water
leaking from an upper floor. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the cases
addressing this defence have often involved quite typical domestic fixtures that would
be seen as a normal use of land today. In a building with multiple tenants, each
resident is typically considered to have agreed to the availability of water on the
property if the supply is standard, but not if it is significantly atypical, faulty, or
hazardous, unless they are specifically aware of it. The defendant is responsible if the
escape occurred because of his negligence.

2. Common Benefit: The defence of common benefit in strict liability is relevant when a
possibly dangerous activity profits both the defendant and the plaintiff, reducing the
defendant’s responsibility for any consequent damage. This principle, which emerged
from cases such as Rylands v Fletcher, permits defendants to claim that when both
parties benefit from the risky activity (like common infrastructure or resources), they
ought to share the responsibility for the consequences.
For instance, if a reservoir constructed for public benefit (which aids nearby
landowners) inundates a property, strict liability might be diminished or eliminated
because of the mutual advantage. This defence consequently represents a weighing of
interests, indicating that strict liability should not be imposed as heavily when the
plaintiff willingly gains from the activity or its natural risks.

3. Force Majeure (Act of God)- This defence is relevant when the harm results from a
natural occurrence that is so remarkable and unpredictable that it could not have been
avoided, even with the greatest caution. Instances encompass intense floods,
earthquakes, or hurricanes. For this defence to be effective, the occurrence must be
outside human control and not attributable to any carelessness by the defendant.
Whether a particular occurrence amounts to an act of God is a question of fact, but the
tendency of the courts nowadays is to restrict the ambit of the defence, not because
strict liability is thought to be desirable but because increased knowledge limits the
unpredictable.

6
Posner, R. A. (1973). Strict Liability: A Comment. The Journal of Legal Studies, 2(1), 205–221.
https://doi.org/10.1086/467496

7
Winfield, P. H. (1971). Winfield and Jolowicz on tort.
http://www.gbv.de/dms/spk/sbb/recht/toc/29323101X.pdf
 4. Plaintiff’s Own Fault- If the damage is partially or entirely due to the claimant's
actions, the defendant may not be held liable. For example, if the plaintiff interferes
with the defendant’s property, causing the escape of the dangerous substance, the
defence can argue that the plaintiff contributed to their own harm. This is also related
to the general defence of “Plaintiff- The Wrongdoer”.

5. Statutory Authority- If the activity that caused the damage was conducted under
explicit statutory authority, the defendant may be protected from strict liability. For
instance, public works projects authorized by law (like sewage systems) might be
exempt if they cause accidental harm

6. Act of a Third Party- When the escape and resulting damage are caused by the
unforeseeable actions of an independent third party over whom the defendant has no
control, this defence may be invoked. For example, if a trespasser sabotages a
reservoir, causing it to flood neighbouring land, the defendant might not be held
strictly liable.8

Remoteness of damages
The concept of remoteness of damages under strict liability determines the extent to which a
defendant can be held responsible for the consequences of their actions. Even in strict
liability cases, not all damages resulting from the escape of a dangerous substance will be
compensable. Courts apply the principle of remoteness to prevent defendants from being
liable for highly unforeseeable or indirect consequences.
Here are some key principles to determine the remoteness of damages:
Foreseeability of Damage:
 Although strict liability does not require proof of negligence, damages must still be a
reasonably foreseeable result of the escape. For example, if a reservoir bursts and
floods a nearby property, the immediate property damage is foreseeable. However, if
it indirectly causes damage far removed from the event, this may be considered too
remote
Direct Consequences:
 The claimant can only recover for direct, natural, and probable consequences of the
escape. If the chain of causation is broken by an intervening event or if the damage is
too remote from the initial cause, the defendant may not be liable.

The Wagon Mound Test:

8
Winfield, P. H. (1971). Winfield and Jolowicz on tort.
http://www.gbv.de/dms/spk/sbb/recht/toc/29323101X.pdf
While traditionally the test of remoteness in negligence was established in The Wagon
Mound (No. 1) case, where damages need to be of a foreseeable type, similar principles are
applied in strict liability to assess if the damage is too remote.

Conclusion
Strict liability is a crucial legal doctrine that plays a significant role in various
areas of law, particularly in protecting consumers and promoting safety. Its
application in product liability, hazardous activities, animal ownership, and
environmental law underscores its importance in modern legal frameworks. As
society continues to evolve, the principles surrounding strict liability will likely
adapt to address emerging challenges and ensure a fair balance between
accountability and justice.