tort presentation in kls by Indranil Ghosh and Nelika Bhattacherjee.

1. LAW OF TORTS
PRESENTATION
TOPIC
THE CONCEPT OF STRICT AND ABSOLUTE
LIABILITY:- A CRITIQUE.
GROUP MEMBERS
INDRANIL GHOSH(882022)
NELIKA BHATTACHERJEE(882035)

2. LIABILITY
The state of being legally obliged and responsible.

 An obligation that legally binds an individual or
company to settle a debt or settling a wrongful act
they may have committed.

3. NO FAULT LIABILITY
Legal responsibility for an injury that can be imposed on

the wrongdoer without proof of carelessness or fault.

4. NO FAULT LIABILITY
STRICT LIABILITY
NO FAULT LIABILITY

 ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

5. STRICT LIABILITY
Liability without fault. In civil law the concept

applies where a person is liable despite the
absence of fault or negligence.
 The rule of Strict Liability has evolved from the
rule laid down in Rylands v Fletcher(1868) L.R. 3
H.L. 330.

6. Rylands v Fletcher(1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330.
The defendant was a mill owner, and he employed

some independent contractors who were apparently
competent, to construct a reservoir on his land to
provide water for his mill. In the course of work the
contractors came upon some old shafts and passages
on the defendant’s land. They communicated with the
mines of the plaintiff, a neighbour of the defendant. The
contractors did not block them up, and when the
reservoir was filled the water from it burst through the
old shafts and flooded the plaintiff’s mines. It was found
as a fact that the defendant had not been negligent,
although the contractors had been. But the House of
Lords held the defendant liable.

7. JUDGMENT BY JUSTICE BLACKBURN
“ the person who for his own purposes brings on

his lands 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. He can excuse himself by showing
that the escape was owing to the plaintiff’s default ;
or perhaps that the consequence was of vis major,
or the act of god; but as nothing of this sort exists
here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse
would be sufficient.”

8. STRICT LIABILITY
ESSENTIALS TO APPLY THE RULE LAID

DOWN BY LORD CRANWORTH:-
1. Som edang rous thing m t havebe n broug in the
e us e ht
land.
2. Thethingm te cape
us s .
3. Itm tbeanonnatural us
us eof land.

9. DANGEROUS THING
According to this rule, the liability for the escape of

a thing from one’s land provided the thing collected
was a dangerous thing, a thing which is likely to do
mischief if it escapes. In Rylands v Fletcher, the thing
so collected was a large body of water. The water
collected in the reservoir was of a huge quantity and
was thus regarded to be of potential danger.

10. ESCAPE
In Read v J. Lyons & Co Ltd(1946) 2 All E.R. 471.

The claimant was employed by the Ministry of
Supply as an inspector of munitions in the
defendants’ munitions factory and, in the course of
her employment there, was injured by the explosion
of a shell that was being manufactured. It was
admitted that high explosive shells were dangerous
but the defendants were held not liable because
“escape” of the thing should be from a place where
the defendant had control and occupation of land to
a place which is outside his occupation and control.

11. NON-NATURAL USE
Water collected in the reservoir in such a huge

quantity in Rylands v Fletcher 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 by
the ordinary use of land or such a use as is proper
for the general benefit of community.

12. EXCEPTIONS
1. PLAINTIFF’SOWN FAULT.
2. ACT OF GOD.
3. CONSENT OF PLAINTIFF.
4. ACT OF THIRD PARTY.
5. STATUTORY AUTHORITY.

13. PLAINTIFF’S OWN FAULT
If the damage is caused solely by the act or default of

the claimant himself, he has no remedy. In Rylands v
Fletcher itself, this was noticed as a defence. If a person
knows that there is a danger of his mine being flooded
by his neighbour’s operations on adjacent land , and
courts the danger by doing some act which renders the
flooding probable he cannot complain. So too in
Ponting v Noakes(1849) 2 Q.B. 281, the claimant’s
horse reached over the defendant’s boundary, nibbled
some poisonous tree there and died accordingly and it
was held that the claimant could recover nothing, for
the damage was due to the horse’s own intrusion and
alternatively there had been no escape of vegetation.

14. ACT OF GOD
Where the escape is caused directly by natural causes

in “circumstances which no human foresight can
provide and of which human prudence is not bound to
recognize the possibility”, the defence of Act of God
applies.This was recognized by Blackburn J. in Rylands v
Fletcher itself and was applied in Nichols v
Marsland(1876) 2 Ex.. 1.. In this case the defendant was
in possession of some artificial ornamental lakes
formed up by damming up a natural stream. An
extraordinary rainfall, “greater and more violent than
any within the memory of the witnesses” broke down
the artificial embankments and carried away four
bridges in respect of which damage the claimant sued.
Judgment was given for the defendant.

15. CONSENT OF PLAINTIFF
Where the claimant has expressly or impliedly

consented to the presence of the source of danger
and there has been no negligence on the part of the
defendant, the defendant is not liable.
 Where the source of danger is maintained for the
“common benefit” of both the plaintiff and the
defendant, the defendant is not liable for its escape.

16. CONSENT OF PLAINTIFF
Illustration:-
 If the plaintiff hired the ground floor of a building
from the defendant. The upper floor of the building
was occupied by the defendant himself. Water
stored on the upper floor leaked without any
negligence on the part of the defendant and injured
the plaintiff’s goods. As the water has been stored
for the common benefit of both the plaintiff and the
defendant, the defendant was held not liable.

17. ACT OF THIRD PARTY
If the harm has been caused due to the act of a

stranger, who is neither the defendant’s servant nor
the defendant has any control over him, the
defendant will not be liable under this rule. Thus in
Box v Jubb (1879) 4 Ex. D. 76 the overflow from the
defendant’s reservoir was caused by the blocking of
a drain by strangers, the defendant was held not
liable for that.

18. STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The rule in Rylands v Fletcher may be excluded by

statute. Whether it is so or not is a question of
construction of the particular statute concerned. In
Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co (1894) 70 L.T.
547, for instance a main belonging to a water-works
company, which was authorized by Parliament to lay
the main, burst without any negligence on the part
of the company and the claimant’s premises were
flooded; the company was held not liable.
 The Chelsea Waterworks Co were authorized by
statute to lay mains and were under a statutory duty
to maintain a continuous supply of water.

19. ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
S trict liability without exceptions becomes A bsolute

L iability.
 It is a liability independent of wrongful intent or of
negligence.
 A ccepted in India its effect can be seen in Payment
of Compensation in case of hazardous industries .
 The burden of proof rests solely on the defendant.

20. ABSOLUTE LIABILITY AND ITS EVOLUTION
Although the terms strict and absolute liability are used

synonymously in England yet the history of cases in Animal trespass
and the judgment of Rylands v. Fletcher distinguished it.
The principle of Absolute Liability was used in India in case of M.C.

Mehta. Initially in the history of England, Absolute Liability was very
much prevalent as could be seen in the case of trespass by cattle
termed as “negligent keeping” by Blackstone.
But then at one time the common-law rules as to liability for damage

or injury by animals were felt to be historical anomalies destined to
be ironed out by gradual extension of the idea of fault to all torts.
And then came up the landmark case of Rylands which gave some

exceptions making the Absolute liability no more absolute(they used
the term Strict) as in words of Sir Frederick Pollock “become slowly
but surely choked and crippled with exceptions.”

21. WHY WASTHERE A NEED OF
ABSOLUTE LIABILITY?
 Tort Lawisdynam inNature It hadtochang
ic e
.
w iththeSocie . ty
 Indus trializationandEconom de lopm nt of
ic ve e
theSocie . ty
 Them aningof “hazardous”chang
e ingtoag at
re
e nt fromtheCas
xte eof RylandtoM.C.Me hta
Cas . e
 De nsfe eof Exce ptionsm ht le
ig adtoe caping
s
liability for dang rous activitie .
e s
 Adjus e of ConflictingInte s .
tm nt re t

22. M.C. Mehta v Union of India AIR 1987 SC
1086
In case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, where the

Supreme Court was dealing with claims arising from
the leakage of Oleum gas on 4th and 6th December,
1985 from one of the units of Shriram Foods and
Fertilizers Industries, in the city of Delhi, belonging to
Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. As the consequence of this
leakage, it was alleged that one advocate practicing in
the Tis Hazari Court had died and several others were
affected by the same. The action was brought through
a writ petition under Art.32 of the Indian Constitution
by way of public interest litigation as the Court thought
that these applications for compensation raised certain
important issues and those issues should be addressed
by a constitutional bench.

23. JUDGMENT BY JUSTICE BHAGWATI
“We would therefore hold that where an enterprise is

engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity
and harm results to anyone on account of an accident
in the operation of such hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity resulting, for example, in escape of
toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to
compensate all those who are affected by the accident
and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions
which operate vis-à-vis the tortious principle of strict
liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher”

24. COMPARING STRICT AND ABSOLUTE
LIABILITY
Conceptual difference.

 Inarticulate premise of the Judges affected
the definition of two liabilities.
 Burden of Proof.

25. STRICT LIABILITY
DEMERITS
MERITS
If it is applied in all situations along with
1. It has a wider scope of application. 
the exceptions, it would limit the scope
of legal standard of due care and so
subjecting another to an unreasonable
injury with a thing he enjoys himself.
2. It has foreseeability and it can incorporate It is an impediment in a social service
2.
new areas of liability like its application state of today, there are certain
relational liabilities established by
in Motor Vehicles Act 1939.
legislation (Workmen’s Compensation);
and the duties towards seamen,
established in admiralty, have been much
extended. Because of the danger to life
and limb involved in industry etc.
Liability of Reparation is imposed upon
the industry.

26. ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
MERITS DEMERITS
1. It is stricter than strict liability and so 1. It leads to the gradual extension of
industries involved in hazardous the idea of fault to all torts.
activities cannot take any plea.
2. It gives a background of support to 2. It has limited application. Only limited
certain relational liabilities like in to hazardous activity.
Workmen’s Compensation where
compensation is given even without
3. It gives too much emphasis on
fault.
enterprise liability.

27. A CRITIQUE
 The concept of non-natural use of land.
The close connection of the strict liability rule with nuisance.

Strict Liability rule is only applicable to the damage occurring

outside the place in which the dangerous thing was kept.
Strict Liability rule does not apply in cases of personal

injuries.
At one point of time the common law rules as to Absolute

liability for damages or injury by animals were felt to be historical
anomalies destined to be ironed out by gradual extension of the
idea of fault to all torts.

29. SPECIAL THANKS:-
 Prof. G.V. Ajappa.
 Prof. Yogesh Pratap Singh.