STRICT LIABILITY UNDER TORTS| LAW OF TORTS NOTES|

Strict Liability Under Law of Torts: Explained with Case Law and Legal Principles

Strict liability is a foundational concept in tort law where a person may be held responsible for harm caused by their actions or property, regardless of intent or negligence. This doctrine ensures that certain hazardous activities or the use of dangerous substances attract liability even if all precautions were taken. This article delves into the doctrine of strict liability, explaining its key elements, principles, and relevant case law.

What is Strict Liability Tort?

The strict liability tort rule applies when a person is held liable for damage caused by their actions or the use of their property, even if they were not at fault or negligent. The principle behind strict liability is to protect others from harm caused by inherently dangerous activities or substances. Unlike other torts, strict liability does not require the plaintiff to prove the defendant’s intent or carelessness.

Blackburn J held we think that, the true rule of law is that the person who for his own purposes 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” .

The Rule of Strict Liability: Origins

The concept of strict liability was established in the famous English case, Rylands v. Fletcher (1868). In this case, the defendant built a reservoir on his land, and when water escaped from the reservoir, it caused damage to the plaintiff’s property. The court ruled that a person who brings anything onto their land, which is likely to cause harm if it escapes, must ensure that no damage occurs. If it does, the defendant will be held liable, even without negligence or fault. This became known as the rule of strict liability.

Doctrine of Strict Liability: Key Elements

The doctrine of strict liability is based on three primary conditions:

1. Dangerous Substances: The defendant must have brought something dangerous onto their land that, if it escapes, could cause significant harm. Examples include chemicals, explosives, or toxic substances.
2. Escape: The substance must escape from the defendant’s property to cause harm. If it remains confined to the defendant’s land, strict liability does not apply.
3. Non-natural Use of Land: The defendant’s use of land must be considered non-natural or unusual. Using land for everyday purposes does not attract strict liability.

Strict Liability in Tort Notes: Key Takeaways

• No need to prove negligence: The plaintiff does not need to prove that the defendant was negligent or at fault.
• Exceptions to strict liability: The doctrine does not apply if the plaintiff consented to the risk, if the damage was caused by an act of God, or if the plaintiff’s own actions led to the harm.
• Public good: If the defendant was performing a public duty, such as constructing a public infrastructure, strict liability may not apply.

Strict Liability Case Law: Important Precedents

1. Rylands v. Fletcher (1868): This case laid the foundation of strict liability in tort law. It established that a person who accumulates dangerous substances on their land must ensure that those substances do not escape and cause harm.
2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987): This case further expanded the principle of strict liability in India, creating the rule of absolute liability, which imposes even stricter standards. The court ruled that industries engaged in hazardous activities must compensate victims of accidents, regardless of precautions taken.
3. Read v. Lyons (1947): In this case, a bomb exploded in a factory during wartime, causing injuries. The court held that since the explosion did not involve an escape from the defendant’s property, strict liability did not apply.

Exceptions

• Consent of the plaintiff: If the plaintiff has given his con sent the strict liability rule will not apply but ‘volenti non-fit injuria’ applies. Hence, the defendant will not be liable. In a leading case,Peter V. Prince of Wales Theatre, A took a lease of a theatre which had been fixed with pipes with running water to be used in case of fire hazard. Due to frost there was leakage in the pipes resulting in the damage to the property of P. P sued D the owner. The court held D not liable as there was consent of the plaintiff.
• Common Benefit: If source of danger is for the common benefit of both the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant is not liable. In Carstairs V. Taylor, B was in the first floor and A was in the ground floor as a tenant. Water from the roof collected in a box and was discharged out through a pipe. A rat gnawed a hole in the box and water leaked out and damaged the goods of A. Held B not liable. The reason was that the arrangement was for the common benefit of both the parties.
• Act of Stranger: If the escape of a thing is due to the act of stranger, the rule will not apply. In Richards V. Lothian, a stranger deliberately blocked up the waste pipe of a lavatory fixed in the premises of D. This caused flooding the premises of P. P sued D. Held, the defendant D was not liable as the act was due to a stranger.
• Statutory authority: Sometimes the law made by parlia ment or State Legislature excludes strict liability. In Green V. Cheisea Water Works Company, the Parliament had authorised the company to lay the main pipes. The pipes burst flooding the premises of P. It was held that the company was not liable, (of course, the act should not be due to the negligence of the defendant).
• Act of God: It is a general defence and may be set up to establish that the escape was due to some natural cause which was beyond the control of the defendant.
• Default of the Plaintiff: If the injury is due to the default of the plaintiff then there is no compensation. In a decided case, the plaintiff teased a Chimpanzee in a zoo and the animal caused injury by biting the hand of the plaintiff. Held the plaintiff alone was responsible and the defendant was not liable.

The modern law has extended this principle of liability to various circumstances and situations. Escape of sparks from railway engine, escape of fire from one house to another have been dealt with at length. In recent years, the liability is extended to nuclear installation where Radio active substances cause hazards to individuals.

Strict Liability and Absolute Liability: The Distinction

Strict liability differs from absolute liability in its application. Under strict liability, defendants can escape liability if certain exceptions (like acts of God) are applicable. However, under the absolute liability principle, as established in the M.C. Mehta v. Union of India case, no such exceptions exist. Industries engaged in hazardous activities are held absolutely liable for any harm caused, regardless of any precautions taken or external factors.

Strict Liability Meaning: Simplified

The meaning of strict liability lies in its focus on accountability for harm caused, regardless of fault or negligence. When a person engages in an activity that is inherently dangerous or involves hazardous substances, they are responsible for ensuring no harm occurs to others, irrespective of how careful they are.

Strict Liability in Jurisprudence

In jurisprudence, strict liability reflects the need to balance individual freedom and societal safety. The law recognizes that some activities, by their nature, are hazardous and require a higher standard of accountability. Through the doctrine of strict liability, the law imposes an obligation on those who engage in such activities to protect the public from potential harm.

Conclusion: Understanding the Rule of Strict Liability

The rule of strict liability serves as a safeguard in tort law, ensuring that individuals and entities engaging in hazardous activities are held accountable for any harm that may result. While the rule originally focused on situations involving dangerous substances, its application has broadened to include other inherently risky activities. Moreover, the distinction between strict liability and absolute liability adds another layer of protection, particularly in industrial and environmental cases, where even stricter standards apply.

For law students and legal professionals, grasping the nuances of strict liability in tort is essential, as it forms a critical component of both personal injury and environmental law cases. With landmark judgments like Rylands v. Fletcher and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the doctrine continues to evolve, emphasizing the importance of accountability in situations where public safety is at risk.

Frequently Asked Questions