If an industry or organization engages in an activity that is intrinsically risky yet creates a financial profit, officials in the industry are accountable for paying the affected parties. If the activity has the potential to cause catastrophic damage.

1. What Exactly Is Absolute Liability?
Total Liability
If an industry or organization engages in an activity that is intrinsically risky yet creates a
financial profit, officials in the industry are accountable for paying the affected parties. If the
activity has the potential to cause catastrophic damage.
Also Read: Alimony in Divorce: Right Of WomenAlimony in Divorce: Right Of Women
Absolute Liability's Key Elements:
Hazardous Item:
Only if a dangerous item escapes from the owner's property will the owner be held liable.
Furthermore, the thing has the potential to cause injury to anyone or any property if it
escapes. A large pool of water, electricity, gas, explosives, smells, rusty wires, and other
elements have been ruled unsafe in a number of strict liability cases.
Escape:
The defendant has full responsibility for any dangerous material that escaped their control
and caused damage to the plaintiff's property or physical injury to anyone. Lyons v. Read &
Co. In this case, the plaintiff worked for the defendant's manufacturing company. as she
went about her business She was critically injured when a manufactured product exploded.
According to the court, the plaintiff was executing her task when the accident occurred, and
it occurred while she was on the job. The defendant cannot dodge his responsibilities,
according to the judgement, and the strict liability concept does not apply in this case. The
accused was held responsible.
Non-natural land use Water collecting for home use is not regarded a non-natural use of land
in and of itself, but water collection in vast quantities, such as that found in a reservoir, is.
The case of Ryland v. Fletcher established that large-scale water collection is an unnatural
use of property.

2. The essential distinction between natural and non-natural land uses is determined by taking
into account the environment, society, and what a reasonable person would do. Planting
trees on one's property is considered a natural use of the land; nevertheless, planting toxic
trees is deemed a non-natural use of the land.
Mischief:
To hold someone liable under this concept, the plaintiff must first show that the defendant
used the land in an unnatural way and avoided a potentially dangerous scenario on it, which
aggravated the harm.
The case at hand is Charing Cross Electric Supply Co. v. Hydraulic Power Co. The
defendant was assigned water delivery duties at several places. The pipeline explodes in
several places because the defendant failed to maintain the requisite minimum pressure. As
a result, the plaintiff suffered substantial damages. Despite the fact that the defendant was
not at fault in this case, he was nevertheless held accountable.
Total Liability = (Strict Liability- Exceptions)
In comparison to the prior rule, the absolute liability rule has a significantly broader scope in
every way. due to the fact that there are no exceptions to the new rule It covers not only
personal injuries caused by neighbor negligence, but also public negligence or fault. It now
holds those who do not own the land, as well as those who occupy it, accountable.
Absolute liability was raised in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, which is considered
one of the major judgements in Indian legal history. Following the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, a
rule was set that any business that is involved in any form of hazardous or intrinsically
harmful material shall be held entirely liable for paying all people impacted, as it was in the
case of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.
Union Of India v. M.C. Mehta (Bhopal Gas Tragedy)
Facts:
M.C. Mehta filed a writ petition under Constitutional Articles 21 and 32. He sought closure for
Shriram Food and Fertilizer since it manufactured harmful substances and was located in
Kirti Nagar's densely inhabited region. While one of the petition's units was still being

3. processed, oleum gas spilled, killing one of the petition's advocates and adversely harming
the health of numerous others.
Just one year later, the Bhopal gas tragedy affected a large number of individuals, including
both employees and members of the general public. This situation also reminds us of the
Bhopal gas tragedy.
Factory closures began as soon as the Inspector of Factories and the Commissioner
(Factories) issued separate instructions. This occurrence occurred just a few months before
the Environment (Protection) Act became law, acting as a model for a successful regulation
like this.
Controversy & Problem:
Is it permissible for such hazardous industries to operate in such areas?
If they are permitted to work in such sectors, would a governing mechanism emerge?
How do you calculate culpability and compensation?
Judgement
A five-judge SC panel led by Justice PN Bhagwati established the notion of ABSOLUTE
LIABILITY in this instance of an oil gas spill.
Even while the construction of hazardous enterprises is required for the advancement of
society and the economy, they cannot avoid their obligations by demonstrating that they
were not reckless in handling the hazardous substance or that they took all reasonable
precautions while managing it.
As a result, the court implemented the no-fault culpability principle with no exceptions in this
case. Prior to the implementation of this law, or prior to 1987, certain high-risk industries
would invoke strict liability exceptions to escape their commitments.
In its ruling, the court also noted the Rylands v. Fletchers case, emphasizing that the strict
liability rule had some exceptions. Rylands v. Fletchers was determined in 1866, a year

4. when tremendous breakthroughs in science and technology made it impossible to establish
such dangerous companies in such close proximity to heavily populated places.
As society evolves, so must the law. As a result, the court found the industry "totally
accountable" and ordered compensation to be given as soon as the harm was shown,
without needing the industry to be present in the case.
M.C. Mehta v. Union Of India: Its Importance
MC Mehta v. Union of India is a seminal case in environmental advocacy. Strict Liability, as
defined in Ryland v. Fletcher, remained in effect until the case of MC Mehta v. Union of India.
Any inherently harmful activities committed on the property of the industry owner or operator,
according to this idea, would bring them to culpability. The "Act of God" defense is one of
several defenses and limited exceptions to the strict liability concept.
Technology advancement and industrialization have increased the amount of dangerous
compounds and gases, putting the environment at risk. As a result, in the Oleum Gas
Leakage case, Absolute Liability was employed instead of the Strict Liability principle.
The MC Mehta v. Union of India case is significant. For the first time in Indian legal history,
the Supreme Court found a firm totally responsible for the gas leaking, regardless of its
defense or alleged loss. Furthermore, by setting severe security standards, the case gave
advice for many industries.
Critical Thinking
The ruling is still recognized as noteworthy in the field of environmental law in our country.
The decision addressed several innovative situations and approaches to the legal system
and fundamental rights. The court maintains the positions made in this instance. As a result,
this case was a significant court ruling in Indian legal history.
The case brought the importance of environmental issues to the attention of the entire
nation, and it was about more than just people's rights, compensation, and economic losses.
Both this and the Bhopal gas tragedy were extremely hazardous to the environment. In

5. today's world of industrial expansion and scientific innovation, the threat to the environment
is quite real.
As vital as this growth is for societal advancement, there is an urgent need to attract
attention to the environmental challenges it raises. With each passing day, we are coming
closer to the end of the world. Everyone on our globe has access to the environment, and
everyone has the human right to live in a safe and healthy environment. It is also everyone's
responsibility to work for it and contribute to its improvement.