TORTS- Absolute Liability

Absolute Liability

Inception in India

The following modifications in the existing Doctrine of Rylands vs. Fletcher led to the following Doctrine of Absolute Liability that prevented the defendants from taking up any defence against payment of compensation.They will not be allowed any exceptions neither can they take up any defence like that of Act of God' or Act of Stranger'.

• If an industry or enterprise is involved in any inherently dangerous activity, then for any damage arising out of the conduction of that activity, the defendants (the owners of the industry) will have no access to any defence or exception and will be absolutely liable to pay compensation to the aggrieved parties.

• such industries provide safety equipments to its workers to prevent any mishap. Therefore, this will safeguard the interests of the workers and will give them a refined, safe working atmosphere.

• In absolute liability, compensation or damage to be paid is exemplary in nature. The amount decided upon should be more than the damage caused as industrial hazardous accidents generally causes mass death and destruction of property and environment.

M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, A.I.R. 1987 ( also known as oleum gas tragedy case)

There was leakage of oleum gas on the 4th and 6th December,1985 from one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries, Delhi,Resulting in the death of an advocate and several others.An action was brought against the industry through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution by way of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). 

The S.C. of India was dealing with the cases, the judges in this case refused to follow the Strict Liability Principle set by the English Laws and came up with the Doctrine of Absolute Liability. The court then directed the organizations who had filed the petitions to file suits against the industry in appropriate courts within a span of 2 months to demand compensation on behalf of the aggrieved victims.

Bhopal Gas Tragedy / Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, (1991) 

This doctrine was upheld in the infamous Bhopal Gas Tragedy which took place between the intervening night of 2nd and 3rd December, 1984. Leakage of methyl-iso-cyanide(MIC) poisonous gas from the Union Carbide Company in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh led to a major disaster and over three thousand people lost their lives. There was heavy loss to property, flora and fauna. The effects were so grave that children in those areas are born with deformities even today.

A case was filed in the American New York District Court as the Union Carbide Company in Bhopal was a branch of the U.S. based Union Carbide Company. The case was dismissed there owing to no jurisdiction. The Government of India enacted the Bhopal Gas Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 and sued the company for damages on behalf of the victims. The Court applying the principle of ‘Absolute Liability’ held the company liable and ordered it to pay compensation to the victims.

Absolute Liability can also be upheld by the courts in case of a single death without any mass destruction of property or pollution of the environment.

Klaus Mittelbachert vs. East India Hotels Ltd.,

In this case, the plaintiff, a German co-pilot suffered grave injuries after diving into the swimming pool of the five-star restaurant. Upon investigation, it was seen that the pool was defectively designed and had insufficient amount of water as well for which no caution board was kept too . The pilot’s injuries left him completly paralyzed leading to death after 13 years of the accident. The court held that five-star hotels that charge hefty amounts owe a high degree of care to its guests. This was violated by Hotel Oberoi Inter-continental, New Delhi when the defectively designed swimming pool left a man dead. This made the hotel absolutely liable for payment of damages. The hefty amounts taken from the guests by the hotel owners guaranteed them to pay exemplary damages to the deceased or in any such further cases. It was decided that the plaintiff would receive Rs. 50 lakhs for the accident caused.

However, with the death of the plaintiff while the suit was still pending in the court, the cause of action also died and the aforesaid decision was reversed on appeal by the defendant party.

For more details and notes please visit, share, follow and subscribe to the blog and youtube channel adityapedia.Its just a click away - absolutely FREE