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

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