Both the rules are based on no fault liability i.e., liability of a person even without any negligent act on his part and even if he has taken due care and caution.
The case in which the rule of Strict liability is laid down is Ryland v/s Fletcher and there are some exceptions applicable to this rule.
The case in which the rule of absolute liability is M.C. Mehta v/s Union of India and such liability is not subject to any exceptions.
Rule of Strict liability
It is based on the land mark case Ryland v/s Fletcher(1868)
In this case the defendant got a reservoir constructed through an independent contractor over his land.
The contractor did not block the shaft and as a result the water flooded the plaintiff's coal mines on the adjoining land.
The plaintiff's sued the defendant for the damage caused.
The court held in this case that the defendant will be liable for the damages.
Justice Blackburn in this case observed that "the person who for his own purposes keeps something on his land which is likely to do mischief if it escapes, such person is answerable for any damages which is caused due to such escape. He can only excuse himself is he shows that the escape was due to plaintiff's own fault, act of God, consent of the plaintiff, act of a third party or statutary authority.
Essentials of Strict liability -
Ryland v/s Fletcher rule provide 3 main essential for strict liability:
Dangerous thing i.e., some dangerous thing must have been brought by a person on his land and if it escapes it will cause damage, the defendant will be liable. In Ryland v/s Fletcher case the large body of water was the dangerous thing.
Escape i.e., the thing kept by the person on his land should escape from his land.
Non natural use of land i.e., for the use to be non natural it must be some special use which brings with it and increases danger towards the other and must not be used by the community. In Ryland's case the reservoir on his land is a non natural use of his land.
Act of an independent contractor
Generally an employer is not liable for the wrongful act of an independent contractor but the rule of Strict liability is liability is an exception to this. In Ryland's case even if the negligent act was done by the independent contractor, the defendant was held liable.
Exception to the Rule of Strict liability
Plaintiff's own fault - It states that damages which are caused by the escape of dangerous thing but due to plaintiff's own fault, will not come under the Rule of Strict liability.
Act of God - It is defined as an extraordinary occurrence due to natural forces which could not be foreseen and could not be prevented by taking reasonable precautions. And there should not be any human involvement.
Consent of the plaintif - It states that where the plaintiff has given his/her consent to the accumulation of the dangerous thing, the rule of Strict liability will not be applicable.
Act of third party - It states that if the harm was caused due to an act of a stranger and about whom the defendant was not aware , then the defendant will not be liable under the rule of Strict liability.
Statutary authority - Ab act which is done under the authority of law will be an exception to the rule of Strict liability but only when there is no negligence.
Rule of Absolute liability
The rule of Absolute liability states that the liability of the defendant for the harm caused due to escape of a dangerous substance shall be absolute and there will be no exceptions for such liability.
M.C. Mehta v/s Union of India (1987)
In this case, there was a leakage of oleum gas from one of the units of Shri Ram Foods and Fertilizers Industries situated in Delhi.
As a consequence of this leakage one advocate was practicing in Tis Hazari Court had died and several others were affected by the same.
Hence, a public litigation was field under Article 32 of the constitution, as within a period of one month this was the second case of a large scale leakage of deadly gas in India.
Almost a year earlier there was a leakage of MIX gas from Union Carbide Plant in Bhopal daue yo which thousands of people died and lacks of people were affected with serious diseases.
The court observed in this case that if the rule of Strict liability was applied to such situations, then those who had established the dangerous Industries around thickly populated area could escape from their liability by using such exception.
The Supreme Court in this case took a bold decision that it was not bound to follow the 19th century rule of Strict liability and it could evolve a rule which is more suitable to the present times. Hence, it evolved the rule of absolute liability as a part of Indian law and gave it more preference than the rule of Strict liability.
And it expressly declared that the new role will not be subject to any exceptions.
Comments