Strict Liability

• Explain the principle of strict liability. State

the exceptions
or
• Explain the principles of strict liability and
distinguish it from absolute liability with
relevant case laws.
or
• Discuss the rule laid down in Rylands v.
Fletcher and M.C.Mehta v. Union of india
(Oleum Gas leak).
 Strict Liability
• Any person, who for his own purposes, brings on his land and
collects and keeps there anything, likely to cause mischief if it
escapes, must keep it at his peril, and he is prima facie
answerable for all the damage, which is the natural
consequence of its escape.
• Strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without
any fault or intention or negligence.
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)
• The defendant got a reservoir constructed, through independent
contractor over his land for providing water to his mill. But
there were old disused shafts under the site of the reservoir. The
contractor failed to observe and so did not block them.
• When the water was filled in the reservoir, it was burst through
the shafts and flooded the plaintiffs coal mines on the adjoining
land.
The questions or issues involved in this case:
a. Whether there is a negligence on the part of the defendant?
b. Where an employer employs an independent contractor, can
the employer be held liable?
c. Whether the defendant can be held liable though there is no
negligence on his part?
• Justice Blackburn evolved the rule of strict liability on the
maxim -
Sic utere tue ut alienum non laedas
means -Everyone must so use his own as not to damage
another
use your own property in such a manner as not to injure
that of another person.
• Court held that the defendant was liable irrespective of
negligence on his part, on the basis of this rule.
Essentials for the application of Strict liability
1.Dangerous thing:
• The plaintiff has to establish that the thing collected and kept on the
defendant’s land is dangerous and is likely to do mischief if it escapes.
• This rule applicable to water, gas, fire, noxious fumes, vibrations, poisonous
vegetations etc.
2. Escape:
• The plaintiff has to prove he suffered injury as a consequence of the escape of
the thing from the defendant’s land.
• To constitute escape, the thing must reach the area outside the occupation and
control of the defendant.
• Bringing or keeping a dangerous thing on one’s land is not an actionable
wrong.
3. Non-natural use:
• The plaintiff has to prove that the defendant keep the thing for non-natural
use.
State of Punjab v. Modern Cultivators
K. Nagireddy and others v. Government of A.P.
• Storage of water in huge quantity in dams for irrigation purpose is natural use.
Exceptions
1. Plaintiff’s own default
• Where the damage is caused by the act or default of the plaintiff himself the
rule will not apply.
Ponting v. Noakes
• Plaintiff’s horse entered into the defendant’s land and it was died after having
nibbled the leaves of a poisonous tree there .
• Defendant is not liable for damages because the damage was occurred for the
horse’s own intrusion to the defendants land.
2. Act of god
• Nichols v. Marshland
3. Consent of the plaintiff or common benefit
Curstairs v. Taylor
• Defendant was plaintiff’s landlord. Defendant lived in a upper storey. The
defendant maintained a rain water box for the benefit of both. Some rats
bit/chewed the water box. As a result the water escaped and damaged
plaintiff’s goods.
• Water box was maintained with the consent of the plaintiff and for the benefit
of the plaintiff and defendant.
4. Act of third party or stranger
Richards v. Lothian
• The plaintiff was a tenant of the defendant on the 2 nd floor.
A third party maliciously plugged up the waste pipes and
opened the water taps.
• The result of that the plaintiff’s goods were damaged by the
flow of water from the lavatory on the 4th floor.
• The defendants were held not liable.
5. Statutory authority
• An authority or power given to do certain acts by
legislature.
Hammer Smith Rail Co. v. Brand
• The value of the plaintiff’s property had considerably
depreciated due to the noise, vibration, and smoke caused
by the running of trains.
6. Natural use of land
• If a person uses his land in a very natural manner, but on account of
such use neighbour suffers- the natural users of the property shall not
be responsible.
State of Punjab v. Modern Cultivators
• Case filed for recover damages for the loss caused by flooding of
their land as a result of a breach/crack in a canal.
• Court held that the canal systems are essentials to the life of the
nation and the land that is used as canal is subjected to an ordinary
use and not to an unnatural use and therefore, the rule was not
applied.
• But the state was held liable on the ground of negligence.
7. Things naturally on land
• The rule of strict liability applies only to things artificially brought
and kept upon the defendants land.
Giles v. Wakler
• A person is not liable for escape of thistle seeds, when the thistle
 Absolute liability
• When a person is involved in handling of inherently dangerous chemical
substance, not withstanding his reasonable care, if it causes injury to the
neighborhood he is liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff under the
principle of absolute liability.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case ) 1987

• Sriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries in a Delhi.
• On the consequences of the oleum gas leakage one advocate was died and
others were affected.
• PIL – Under Article 32 before the SC
• Court observed that if the rule of strict liability was applied to such
situations, then those who had established hazardous and inherently
dangerous industries in and around thick population areas could escape the
liability for the havoc caused thereby by pleading some exception to the
rule.
• This is much more powerful than the rule of strict liability.
• It was said to be a strong legal tool against a dishonest or unprincipled