(..9..)
STRICT LIABILITY
QUESTION BANK
Q.1. Discuss the principle of 'absolute liability with reference to a case fully Rylands V/s. Fletcher.
Q.2. Explain the Rule of Liability lay down in Rylands V/s. Fletcher and describe the exceptions recognized to this rule.
Q.3. Explain what ' absolute liability ' is. Are there any exceptions recognised to this rule? Discuss with relevant case law.
Q.4. Explain the doctrine following 'Absolute liability' as decided by the Supreme Court of India in M.C. Mehta vs Union of India.
Q.5. Discuss the principle of strict liability in the law of torts. Which are its limits?
SHORT NOTES
1. Wrong of absolute liability.
2. Rylands V/s Fletcher.
3. Absolute liability
4. Negligence in the keeping of animals.
SYNOPSIS
I. Definition: -
II. The Principle of Strict Liability-
1. The Origin and the Principle of Strict Liability-
2. Exceptions to the rule of Rylands V/s Fletcher
a. Things naturally on land: -
b. Consent of the plaintiff: -
c. Plaintiffs' own default: -
d. Wrongful act of the third party: -
e. Act of God (vis major): -
f. Statutory Authority: -
3. Instances of absolute liability-
a. Escape of Dangerous Things: -
b. Escape of Animals: -
The Scienter Rule: -
c. Dangerous Goods, or use of things naturally dangerous: -
d. Cases Relating to Dangerous Premises: -
i. Persons entering as of right: -
ii. An invitee: -
iii. Trespassers: -
iv. Licensees: -
v. Passerby-
The Occupier's Liability Act, 1957-
The Act reduces the categories of visitors to two-
(1) Lawful visitors: -
(2) Trespasser:
e) Railway level crossing: -
f) Persons professing skill: -
III. The Principle of Absolute Liability-
I. Definition: -
In the law of torts, liability is generally based on the principle of fault—a person is held responsible for harm only if they acted with intent or negligence. However, as society industrialized, courts and legislatures recognized that certain activities are so inherently dangerous that those who conduct them must bear the financial consequences of any resulting harm, regardless of how careful they were.
This gave rise to the concepts of Strict Liability and Absolute Liability—doctrines of "no-fault liability" where the claimant does not need to prove negligence, intent, or a guilty mind (mens rea).
II. The Principle of Strict Liability-
1. The Origin and the Principle of Strict Liability-
The doctrine of strict liability originated in English common law in the landmark case of Rylands V/s. Fletcher
Facts: - Fletcher was working a coal mine under a lease. Rylands desired to erect a reservoir to store water on the neighbouring land. For this purpose, he employed a competent, independent contractor whose workers, while excavating the soil, discovered some disused shafts (channels) and passages of old working and passing towards the mine in adjoining land. The shafts (channels) and passages were filled with loose soil. The contractor did not take the trouble to pack these shafts and passages with earth to bear the water pressure in the reservoir when filled. Shortly after the construction was over, it was filled with water, and the shafts (channels) that were not adequately packed gave way to water, resulting in a reservoir burst. Consequently, the water flooded the old passages and thereby flooded the plaintiff's mine, so the mine could not be worked. The plaintiff sued for damages. No negligence was proved on the defendant's part because the independent contractor was an engineer qualified to carry on the work properly and acted negligently.
The Court held: -That the question of negligence was quite immaterial. In bringing water into the reservoir, the defendant was bound to keep water at his own peril and therefore liable.
Principle of this case:-The person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to make mischief must keep it at his peril. He is prima facie answerable for all the damages, which are the natural consequences of its escape, irrespective of his intention or negligence.
2. Exceptions to the rule of Rylands V/s Fletcher
a. Things naturally on land: -
The 'Ryland V/s Fletcher' rule applies to dangerous things artificially brought or collected on the land by the occupier or owner but not to things that grow or get collected on the land naturally. So, for example, a person is not liable for the escape of thistle seeds when the thistle has grown naturally on his land, water getting accumulated by natural causes, etc.; the defendant would not be held liable by the rule of absolute liability.
b. Consent of the plaintiff: -
The rule of absolute liability is not applicable where the escape is due to artificial works maintained with the plaintiff's consent and for the common benefit of the defendant and plaintiff.
In Carstairs V/s Taylor
Facts—The defendant was the plaintiff's landlord. The plaintiff hired the ground floor of a building from the defendant. The defendant maintained a rainwater box for both of their benefits. Some rats gnawed at the water box, causing water to escape and damage to the plaintiff's goods below.
Held that the defendant maintained the water box with the plaintiff's consent; therefore, the defendant was not liable in the absence of negligence on his part.
c. Plaintiffs' own default: -
The rule does not apply where the escape is due to the plaintiff's default.
In Smt. Krishna Devi V/s. Haryana State Electricity Board
Held: - Where the plaintiff was killed due to his own trespass, the claimant is not entitled to damages.
d. Wrongful act of the third party: -
Where escape is caused by the wrongful actions of a third party over which the defendant has no control, he is not liable under absolute liability to the third person.
For example, if a third person has opened the outlet of the reservoir, allowing water to flood the land and damage to cultivators, the reservoir authority is not responsible.
e. Act of God (vis major): -
The rule of absolute liability does not apply when the escape is due to vis major or the operation of some superior force beyond reasonable expectations of human control. E.g. damage caused by the flood, heavy rain, heat wave, earthquake, etc.
f. Statutory Authority: -
No action will lie for doing what the legislature has authorised if it is done without negligence (although it does occasion damage to anyone). However, the action does lie for doing what the legislature has authorised if done negligently.
3. Instances of absolute liability-
Absolute liability may arise in the following cases: -
a. Escape of Dangerous Things: -
Strict liability has its origin in the case of Rylands V/s. Fletcher. The case is related to the escape of dangerous things. The principle of this case is that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to make mischief must keep it at his peril. He is prima facie answerable for all the damages, which are the natural consequences of its escape. There are some exceptions to the rule of strict liability as to the escape of dangerous things is concerned. We have discussed them above.
b. Escape of Animals: -
A person may become liable for the damage caused by the animal under his possession or control. Common law imposes liability in such cases in three ways. He may be liable for the damage done by his animal-
i. On the general principle, in trespass, nuisance, and negligence.
ii. Cattle trespass; or
iii. Under the rule of Scienter.
The Scienter Rule: -
In the case of domestic animals (i.e. animals' Mansueto nature), the plaintiff should prove Scienter, i.e. knowledge of the animal's dangerous propensity to the defendant (owners). Unless the plaintiff proves that the defendant had such knowledge, he will not be successful. On the other hand, in action for injury caused by animals of a dangerous character, the plaintiff need not plead or prove that the defendant had any such knowledge.
In May, V/s. Burdett
The defendant was held liable for keeping a monkey that bit the plaintiff because the monkey is a dangerous animal.
In Nitin Walla V/s. Union of India
(AIR 2002 Delhi)
Facts: -Tigress in the cage injured the child, which resulted in the imputation of his hand.
Held: - The government is liable for not keeping wild, ferocious animals like a tigress in good protection; 5 lakh rupees compensation is awarded.
In England, the Animals Act of 1971 replaced the existing standard law rules.
c. Dangerous Goods, or use of things naturally dangerous: -
Firstly, strict liability may be related to the things that are dangerous but are without any tendency to escape; secondly, strict liability may arise in case of dangerous things tending to escape. Here, we shall deal with the former; the latter has been dealt with in Rayland V/s. Fletcher's case. In legal cases, dangerous goods include domestic fire, non-domestic fire, firearms, explosives, poisonous drugs, gas, machinery, dangerous articles, etc. The danger and care of keeping them (or liability arising from injury) are coextensive, so the more dangerous the nature of goods is, the higher the care and liability.
d. Cases Relating to Dangerous Premises: -
Occupiers of premises have specific duties and liabilities towards certain types of persons. Such liability varies, person to person, viz.
i. Persons entering as of right: -
The persons entering the premises as of right, e.g., a bailiff of the Court or a corporation official to collect taxes, a bill collector, or a police officer, are entitled to have the premises made safe for them and not merely to be warned of the danger.
ii. An invitee: -
An invitee is a person invited into the premises by the occupier for some purpose or business, e.g. a customer.
Where a person enters the premises on invitation, the occupier must warn such persons of the dangers known to him on the premises or which, with reasonable diligence, (he) could have discovered.
iii. Trespassers: -
A trespasser is a person who enters another's property without any right or permission. The general rule is no duty of care toward such a person. He, who enters wrongfully, does so at his own risk in all respects. An occupier is only liable where the injury is due to some willful act involving something more than the absence of reasonable care. Thus, the occupier must avoid endangering the safety of a trespasser by concealed dangers like the trap or other dangers which would cruelly punish him.
In Smt. Krishna Devi V/s. Haryana State Electricity Board
Facts: - The defendant company's employee entered a non-entry premise of the same defendant company without permission to collect cylinders and was killed in a cylinder explosion. The company's premises were completely protected from facing any eventuality, i.e. which may occur from an explosion of a cylinder, etc.
Held: The company is not liable for Trespassers since its premises were built to withstand any eventuality. Therefore, there was no negligence on the company's part, and there was sufficient information about the area being dangerous, which the company declared a 'non-entry area'.
iv. Licensees: -
A licensee is a person who enters the premises under a license from the occupier, either express or implied. In respect of the licensee, the care required is: -
i) To caution them against any known insecurity or hidden danger which is not readily discoverable and of which he was aware. Still, the other party was ignorant (e.g. trap, etc.).
ii) Not to alter the character of the place (a) by placing dangerous obstructions on it or (b) by affecting the conditions of the property, whereby the danger is increased.
v. Passerby-
In regard to persons lawfully passing by the premises, the duty of the occupier of the adjacent premises extends to guarding passersby against any harm that may be caused by the occupier's premises.
The Occupier's Liability Act, 1957-
The Occupiers Liability Act 1957 has modified the liability of an occupier of dangerous premises to some extent.
The Act reduces the categories of visitors to two-
(1) Lawful visitors: -
The Act abolished the distinction between licensee and invitee; both are comprehended under the Act as "visitors". So now the occupier owes "the common duty of care" to all his visitors.
(2) Trespasser:
The Act does not affect the occupier's liability regarding trespassers.
e) Railway level crossing: -
Railway companies are bound to close the level crossing gates while a train approaches. If they omit to do so, negligence on their part is proven. Therefore, the company is liable for injuries caused to any person by train while attempting to cross the line.
In the context of this topic, the expression' Premise' means not only land and buildings but also vehicles, railway carriages, scaffolding, and the like.
f) Persons professing skill: -
The persons of skill are bound to exercise their skill. It is not enough that the defendants have acted bonafide and to the best of their skill and judgment. The practice of a profession, art, or calling, which, from its nature, demands some special skill, ability, and experience, carries the representation with it that the person practising or exercising it possesses to a reasonable extent, the amount of skill, ability, and experience which it demands. Failure to exercise such skill, causing injury or damage to others to whom they owe such duty is entitled to damages.
Such persons are-
(1) Directors of the company, (2) Carriers, (3)Innkeepers, (4) Physicians and surgeons, (5) Solicitors, (6) Counsel, (7) Bankers, and (8) Manufacturers.
-In S. Sharma V/s. State of U. P.
The state is held liable for the negligence of its doctor in carrying out a vasectomy operation because the operation could not succeed, and his wife remained pregnant.
III. The Principle of Absolute Liability-
The doctrine of absolute liability is a stricter, modern legal development originating in India. It was formulated by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) (often called the Oleum Gas Leak case) followed after 1984 Bhopal Gas Tragedy.
In M. C. Mehta V/s. Union of India
Facts: - The case related to the harm caused by an escape of Oleum gas from one of the Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industry units in Delhi, causing harm to local citizens.
The Court held: - That the rule of Rylands V/s. Fletcher was developed long back; therefore, it is inadequate to meet the needs of modern industrial society. In modern times, hazardous or inherently dangerous industries are necessary. Therefore, the Indian Court laid down a new rule which was yet not recognized by English Courts, i.e. "where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone, on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity, (escape of toxic gas, etc.), the enterprise is “absolutely liable” to compensate all those who are affected by accident and it is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate the principle of “strict liability” under the rule of Ryland V/s. Fletcher.
Due to the absolute liability principle evolved in M.C. Metha’s case, the Company came to a settlement in the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Case-
Facts: - In 1984, on the night of December 2, a mass disaster, the worst in recent times, was caused by the leakage of Methyl-Iso-Cyanide and other toxic gases from the company named 'Union Carbide India Ltd.' at Bhopal. About 4000 people died, and about two lakhs were seriously injured.
The Supreme Court allowed the settlement in the case since the Union of India was also a party in the suit. The litigation was settled out of court for $470 million to ensure the victims received immediate relief instead of waiting decades for trial conclusions.
In modern times, the principle of absolute liability is no longer confined to traditional chemical plant leaks. It has expanded to encompass the “Polluter Pays” principle, modern high-tech and hazardous infrastructure, etc. The principle of absolute liability works as a corporate deterrence against corporate cost-cutting on safety protocols.
In Kadir Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (decided on 20th April 2026 in (O.A. No. 18/2025, NGT)
Facts: Private brick kiln operators illegally excavated soil far beyond permissible depths, creating massive trenches. Rainwater filled these unsecured pits, and five local children playing nearby slipped into the water and drowned.
Held: The National Green Tribunal (NGT) applied the Principle of Absolute Liability to illegal mining and excavation. The tribunal held that those engaging in hazardous, illegal earth-extraction activities cannot escape liability for the resulting loss of life, regardless of claims of "accidental drowning" or "lack of direct negligence."
The NGT awarded â‚ą20 Lakhs per deceased child as "Environmental Damage Compensation" to the legal heirs. Under the NGT Act, 2010, the tribunal utilizes Section 15 and Section 17 to award damages based on the "no-fault" absolute liability rule specifically for environmental infractions (i.e., unsafe land excavation).
*****