TORTS - strict liability

STRICT LIABILITY

Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds a party responsible for their actions or products, without the plaintiff having to prove negligence or fault.

Definition:

 The rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril; and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape - Blackburn, J.

Even if the defendant took necessary precautions and followed safety requirements, strict liability crimes are unique in that they would still hold the defendant responsible. Due to the nature of the activity, the defendant should be able to foresee that a person could be harmed by it.

The Strict Liability principle is also called as ‘No Fault Liability’. This is contradictory to the general principle of negligence in torts where a person can be held liable for commission of a tort only when the plaintiff can prove negligence on his part and the defendant himself is unable to disprove it

Strict liability emphasis on 3 major essentials

Dangerous Thing
 According to this rule, the liability of escape of a thing from a person’s land will arise only when the thing or substance collected is a dangerous thing i.e. a thing which is likely to cause mischief or damage to other people in person or their property on its escape. 

In various torts cases filed worldwide, the ones involving the doctrine of strict liability have held “large body of water, gas, electricity, vibrations, yew trees, sewage, flag-pole, explosives, noxious fumes, rusty wires, etc. as dangerous things.

Escape:

The thing that has caused damage or mischief must ‘escape’ from the area under the occupation and control of the defendant.

Non-natural use of land: 

Water collected on land for domestic purposes does not amount to non-natural use of land but storing it in huge quantity like that in a reservoir amounts to non-natural use of the land (Rylands vs. Fletcher). This distinction between natural and non-natural use of land can be made possible by its adjustment to existing social conditions. Growing of trees is held natural use of land but if the defendant is found to grow trees of poisonous nature on his land, then it is non-natural use of the land. If the land has been used naturally yet a conflict has risen between the defendant and the plaintiff, owing to natural use of land, the court will not hold the defendant liable.

Mischief: 

To make the defendant liable under the doctrine of strict liability, the plaintiff needs to prove that the defendant made non-natural use of his land and escape of the dangerous thing caused mischief/damage to him. The resultant damage needs to be shown by the plaintiff after successfully proving that unnatural use of the land was done by the defendant.

Rylands v. Fletcher (17 july 1868) Almost 152years passed by after its judgement and this case still hold a very significant part in Torts.

The defendant (Fletcher) an owner of a mill in Answorth with an aim to improve water supply for his mill employed independent and efficient engineers for the construction of a reservoir. During their excavation of the ground underneath, they came across some shafts and passages but chose not to block them. Post construction of the reservoir when they filled it with water, all the water flowed through the unblocked old shafts and passages to the plaintiff’s (Rylands) coal mines on the adjoining land and inundated them completely. 

The engineers kept the defendant in the dark about the occurrence of these incidents. On a suit filed before the court by the plaintiff against the defendant, the court though ruled out negligence on the defendant’s part but held him liable under the rule of Strict Liability.

Any amount of carefulness on his part is not going to save him where his liability falls under the scope of ‘No Fault Liability’.

Further exceptions/defences to the Doctrine of Strict Liability:

• Damage caused due to natural use of land
• Consent of the Plaintiff
• Plaintiff’s Own Default
• Act of Stranger
• Act of God
• Common Benefit of Plaintiff and the Defendant
• Statutory Authority

Damage caused due to natural use of land : the defendant is able to prove before the court that he made natural use of his land, he will be exempted from the rule of strict liability applying on him.

Consent of the Plaintiff : the plaintiff has either expressly or impliedly consented to the presence of a source of danger and also there has been no negligence on the defendant’s part, the defendant will not be held liable. 

It is basically the defence of ‘Volenti non fit injuria’ taken by the defendant in the court.

Plaintiff’s Own Default : When damage is caused to the plaintiff solely due to his own fault, he shall receive no remedy in such cases.

Act of Stranger: When damage is caused due to wrongful act committed by a third party or any stranger over whom the defendant had no control, the defendant will not be held liable under such circumstances.

Act of God: acts which are beyond human control and contemplation, caused due to superior natural forces, the principle of strict liability does not apply.

Common Benefit of Plaintiff and the Defendant: the act or escape of the dangerous thing was for the common benefit of the defendant and plaintiff, the defendant will not be held liable.

Statutory Authority :any act done under the authorization of the law/statute like the government of a country or a state government causes any damage to a person, it acts as a defence to an action for tort.

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