RULE OF STRICT LIABILITY: AN OVERVIEW

[The Author, Deekhsha Sharma is a 2nd year Ba.LLB(Hons.) student at The Lawschool, University of Jammu.]

INTRODUCTION

There are situations when a person may be liable for some harm even though he is not negligent in causing the same, or there is no intention to cause the harm, or sometimes he may even have made some positive efforts to avert the same. In other words, sometimes the law recognizes ‘No fault liability’. In this connection, the rules laid down in Rylands V. Fletcher, (1868) and, secondly in the decision of the Supreme Court of India in M.C. Mehta V. Union of India, (1987) may be noted.

Here, we will discuss the Rule of Strict liability laid down in Rylands V. Fletcher:

In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortious intent). The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible. The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous.

The principle of Strict liability evolved from the case Rylands V. Fletcher (1868). The principle clearly states that a person who keeps hazardous substances in his premises is responsible for the fault if that substance escapes in any manner and causes damages.

RYLANDS V. FLETCHER: In this case, the defendant (Rylands) owned a mill and wanted to improve its water supply. For this purpose, he employed independent contractors and engineers to construct a reservoir nearby.

The contractors found disused mines when digging but failed to seal them properly. They filled the reservoir with water. As a result, water flooded through the mineshafts into the plaintiff’s (Fletcher) mines on the adjoining property.

The defendant took the defence that it was not his fault but the contractor. His being liable for the damage, the cause of which was unknown to him was not acceptable to him.

Held: The Court of Exchequer Chamber held the defendant liable and the House of Lords affirmed their decision.

ESSENTIALS OF STRICT LIABLITY

• DANGEROUS THING: This means that the liability for the escape of a thing from one’s land arises provided the thing collected was a dangerous thing. The word ‘Dangerous’ here means that it is likely to do any sort of mischief if it escapes. In Rylands V. Fletcher, the thing so collected was a large body of water. The rule also applies to gas, electricity, explosives, flag pole, noxious fumes, vibrations, yew trees, sewage and even rusty wires if escaped from the premises of the owner.
• ESCAPE: It is also essential that the thing causing harm must escape from the premises of the defendant. It should not be within the reach of the defendant after its escape. For instance, if there is projection of the branches of a poisonous tree on the neighbour’s land this amounts to an escape and if the cattle lawfully there on the neighbour’s land are poisoned by eating the leaves of the same the defendant will be liable under the rule. But, if the plaintiff’s cattle intrudes over the boundary and dies by nibbling the leaves of a poisonous tree, there the defendant cannot be liable because there is no escape of vegetation in this case. In Rylands V. Fletcher, the dangerous thing water had escaped from the defendant’s premises.
• NON-NATURAL USE OF LAND: In Rylands V. Fletcher, water collected in the reservoir in such a huge quantity was held to be non-natural use of land. Keeping water for ordinary domestic purposes is ‘natural use’. For the use to be non-natural, it “must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others, and must not merely by the ordinary use of land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community”. In Sochacki V. Sas, it has been held that the fire in a house in a grate is an ordinary, natural, proper, everyday use of the fire place in the room. If this fire spreads to the adjoining premises, the liability under the rule in Rylands V. Fletcher cannot arise.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE

The following exceptions to the rule have been recognized by Rylands V. Fletcher and some later cases:

1.) PLAINTIFF’S OWN DEFAULT: If the plaintiff suffers damage by his own intrusion into the defendant’s property, he cannot complain for the damage so caused. The plaintiff cannot recover anything if the damage was caused due to the unusual sensitiveness of the plaintiff’s apparatus and such damage won’t cause any harm to a person carrying ordinary business there. Until and unless there is “escape” of the dangerous thing or the land of the defendant is being used for non-natural purposes for an ordinary person, the defendant can’t be held liable.

2.) ACT OF GOD: An act of god or vis major can be defined as an event that directly and exclusively results from the occurrence of natural causes that could not have been prevented by the exercise of foresight or caution. That is, if the escape was unforeseen and without any human intervention, caused by some super natural force, then the defendant will not be liable for the damages.

3.) CONSENT OF THE PLAINTIFF: In case of volenti non fit injuria, i.e., where the plaintiff has consented to the accumulation of the dangerous thing on the defendant’s land, the liability under the Rylands V. Fletcher does not arise. Such a consent is implied where the source of danger is for the ‘common benefit’ of both the plaintiff and the defendant. On the other hand, when a festival is organized and the display of fireworks causes damages to the crowd, the organizers will be liable since the display will not be deemed to be conducted for the benefit of all.

4.) ACT OF THIRD PARTY: The rule of strict liability doesn’t apply when the damages is caused due to the act of a stranger. A stranger will be a person who is not the servant of the defendant nor is under the control of the defendant. However, if the act of the stranger can be foreseen by the defendant, due care must be taken by the defendant to avoid the damages.

5.) STATUTORY AUTHORITY: An act done under the authority of the statute is a very strong defence to an action for tort. However, the defence cannot be pleaded if there is any kind of negligence on the part of the defendant who is under statutory authority.

CONCLUSION

In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without finding of fault. Strict liability is distinguished from absolute liability. In this context, an actus reus may be excused from strict liability if due diligence is proved. Absolute liability, however, requires only an actus reus.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION

1. Is rule of Strict liability applicable in India?

Ans. Yes. The rule of Strict liability is applicable as much in India as in England. There has, however, been recognition of some deviation both ways, i.e., in the extension of the scope of the rule of strict liability as well as the limitation of its scope.

REFERENCES

1. ‘What is Strict liability?’ < https://www.examchum.uk/landscape-architecture/strict-liability-in-tort/#:~:text=In%20tort%20law%2C%20strict%20liability,considers%20to%20be%20inherently%20dangerous. > accessed on 8 July 2020
2. Rylands V. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330
3. M.C. Mehta V. Union of India A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1086
4. Sochacki V. Sas (1947) 1 all E.R. 344
5. (R.K.Bangia)
6. ‘Essentials and Exceptions’ < https://www.legalbites.in/rules-strict-absolute-liability/#:~:text=Strict%20liability%20is%20the%20principle,any%20manner%20and%20causes%20damages. > accessed on 8 July 2020