A project on

STRICT LIABILITY: A COMMENT

SUBMITTED TO:

Ms. Madhurima De Sarkar

(Faculty-Law of Torts)

SUBMITTED BY:

Apoorva Chandra
Semester: 3, Section: C, Roll No: 25,
Program: B.A. LL.B (Hons)

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

Uparwara Post, Abhanpur, New Raipur – 493661 (C.G.)
 INDEX

TOPIC PAGE(S)

1. INTRODUCTION 3

1.1 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM 3

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 4

1.3 HYPOTHESIS 4

1.4 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 4

1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 5

1.6 CHAPTERIZATION 5

2. Definition of a tort 6-7

3. Definition of strict liability 8-9

4. Application of strict liability 10-11

5. Elements of strict liability 12

6. Types of strict liability 13-14

7. conclusion

BIBLIOGRAPHY
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Strict liability is the legal responsibility for damages or injury, even if the person found strictly
liable was not at fault. In order to prove strict liability in tort, plaintiff needs to prove only that
the tort happened and that the defendant was responsible for the act or omission. In the case of
strict liability, neither good faith nor the fact that the defendant took all possible precautions are
valid defenses.
Liability is strict in those cases where the defendant is liable for
damage cause by his act irrespective of any fault on his part. Thus, liability is strict because it is
not based on any consideration of fault on the part of the defendant. However, liability is strict
and not absolute, since the latter will not admit of any exceptions or defenses..

1.1HISTORY
Strict liability under the rule in Ryland's v Fletcher

The rule for the imposition of liability without fault was first formulated in the case of Ryland's v
Fletcher. In that case, the defendant employed an independent contractor to construct a reservoir
on their land for the collection of water for their mill. The contractor carelessly omitted to block
up some old shaft on the site which unknown to defendant communicated with the plaintiff's
mine beneath the reservoir. When the reservoir was full of water burst through the old shaft and
flooded the plaintiff mine. It was held that the defendant was strictly liable for the damage even
though there was no fault on their part.

In law, strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil
context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and
loss caused by his/her acts and omissions regardless of culpability (including fault in criminal
law terms, typically the presence of. Under strict liability, there is no requirement to
prove fault, negligence or intention. Strict liability is prominent in tort law (especially product
liability), corporations law, and criminal law.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

What is strict liability?

In law of torts, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault
(such as negligence or tortuous 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. It discourages reckless behavior and needless loss by forcing potential
defendants to take every possible precaution. It also has the effect of simplifying and thereby
expediting court decisions in these cases.

Legal definition of strict liability.

Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes a person or company responsible for their actions or
products which cause damages regardless of any negligence or fault on their part. A plaintiff
filing a personal injury lawsuit under a strict liability law does not need to show intentional or
negligent conduct, only that the defendant's action triggered strict liability and that the plaintiff
suffered a harm. Whether or not a tort action is considered strict liability and what damages are
appropriate will depend on your state law, so consult an experienced personal injury
attorney prior to filing a strict liability tort.

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

 To give a brief concept about the concept of strict liability.

 To deal with the concept of the term strict liability and its implications
 To discuss about the types of strict liability
 To compare the position of the concept of strict liability in English and Indian Law.
 To draw a conclusion based upon this research and give the possible suggestions.
1.3 HYPOTHESIS
This project seeks to explain the concept of STRICT LIABILITY in detail along with
giving importance to the concepts of elements of strict liability, types of strict liability
and Several, etc. This topic in actuality consists of very specific terminologies and this
research project seeks to establish that.

1.4 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

 Ramaswamy Iyer, , The Law of Torts1- The Chapter 16 of this book deals with subject of
the research project.
 Dr.R.K Bangia , Law of Tort2 - The Chapters of this book deals with strict liability to the
person in detail. Much of the information in the research project has been used from this
book.
 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal,
 P.S.A Pillai, Law Of Tort3

1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research is descriptive and analytical in nature. Secondary and electronic resources
have been largely used to gather information and data about the topic. Books and other
reference as guided by the faculty have been primarily helpful in giving this project a
firm structure. Websites, dictionaries and articles have also been referred. Sources have
been provided wherever needed, to acknowledge the same.

1
Tenth edition 2010, Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur
2
Twenty-Third Edition 2013, Allahabad Law Agency
3
Ninth Edition Reprinted 2010, Eastern book Company
1.6 CHAPTERIZATION

 Chapter 1 : Introduction
 Chapter 2 : Definition of a tort
 Chapter 3 : Definition of strict liability
 Chapter 4 : Application of strict liability
 Chapter 5 : Elements of strict liability
 Chapter 6 : Types of strict liability
 Chapter 7 : Conclusion
CHAPTER 2. DEFINITION OF A TORT

A negligent or intentional civil wrong not arising out of a contract or statute. These include
"intentional torts" such as battery or defamation, and torts for negligence. A tort, in
common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong that unfairly causes someone else to suffer loss or
harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act, called a tortfeasor.

A tort is an act that injures someone in some way, and for which the injured person may sue the
wrongdoer for damages. Legally, torts are called civil wrongs, as opposed to criminal ones.
(Some acts like battery, however, may be both torts and crimes; the wrongdoer may face both
civil and criminal penalties.)

In tort law strict liability has traditionally been applied for damages caused by animals. Because
animals are not governed by a conscienceand possess great capacity to do mischief if not restrain
ed, those who keep animals have a duty to restrain them. In most jurisdictions thegeneral rule is t
hat keepers of all animals, including domesticated ones, are strictly liable for damage resulting fr
om the Trespass of theiranimals on the property of another. Owners of dogs and cats, however, a
re not liable for their pets' trespasses, unless the owners have beennegligent or unless strict liabili
ty is imposed by statute or ordinance.
CHAPTER 3: DEFINITION OF STRICT LIABILITY

Strict liability is a tort law concept that imposes liability for harm suffered without requiring
proof of negligence. It is commonly used in product liability law. State statutes also may impose
strict liability in other contexts, such as conditions or activities that are abnormally dangerous.
Transporting explosives might be an example of such an activity for which strict liability is
imposed. A few states have passed special statutes that impose strict liability for harm caused by
domestic animals with no known dangerous propensities.

Products liability claims can be based on negligence, strict liability, or breach of warranty of
fitness depending on the jurisdiction within which the claim is based. In a strict liabilty theory of
liability, the degree of care exercised by the manufacturer is irrelevant, as long as the product is
proven to be defective, they will be held liable for the harm resulting from the defect.
CHAPTER 4: WHEN DOES STRICT LIABILITY APPLIES

Strict liability often applies when people engage in inherently dangerous activities. There are
many factors a court will use to determine whether or not an activity is inherently dangerous.
Some activities, such as transportation or use of heavy explosives or dangerous chemicals, are
inherently dangerous in any circumstance. Other activities may be dangerous, but not inherently
dangerous enough to trigger strict liability. For those activities the law will look at the possible
level of harm the activity could cause, whether or not such an activity is common or expected in
the place it is being conducted, and whether or not the activity is necessary. For example, a
construction company using some sort of blasting technique on a job may not be inherently
dangerous in an unpopulated area if adequate safety precautions are met, but can be inherently
dangerous if done in a crowded city. If a construction company is conducting blasting activities
in a crowded city, and if the blasting causes harm to someone the company can be liable for any
personal injuries under a strict liability tort theory. It does not matter if the blasting was properly
monitored in order to ensure the safest possible technique because if an activity is inherently
dangerous considering the place and time it is conducted and a plaintiff suffers an injury as a
result of that conduct, then a strict liability action negates any defense. Inherently dangerous
activities can include acts by the defendant, transportation of various materials or explosives, or
keeping dangerous animals that can cause harm to others.

Strict liability also may apply in the case of certain manufactured products. In strict product
liability, anyone who is involved in the manufacture or sale of the product can be held
responsible if it was defective and someone was injured. There is no need to prove negligence in
a product liability claim. A plaintiff must show that they did not tamper with or misuse the
product, but that the product was manufactured and sold in a condition that the ordinary and
expected use of it resulted in harm to them.
CHAPTER 5:ELEMENTS OF STRICT LIABILITY

A plaintiff in a civil cause of action must generally show three things to establish a strict liability
offense. The first is that a defendant (person or company) did something that was inherently
dangerous and unreasonable under the circumstances. The plaintiff must then show that the
inherently dangerous act caused something bad to happen to the plaintiff. Finally, the plaintiff
must show they actually suffered harm as a result of their injury. If a plaintiff cannot show an
actual harm, such as a physical injury, they may not be able to make their strict liability claim.

Once a plaintiff proves a strict liability personal injury claim, a defendant is pretty much on the
hook for the damages, regardless of their disclaimers. Disclaimers and waivers of liability for
products are often invalidated by courts as against public policy (courts should not condone the
manufacture and distribution of defective products) and warranties are typically limited so that
manufacturers and retailers are held responsible for personal injuries caused by the use of the
product.

5.1 Liability despite exercise of all due care

Strict liability applies under the Restatement rule even though “the seller has exercised all
possible care in the preparation and sale of his product.” This is the crux of “strict liability” and
distinguishes it from the conventional theory of negligence. It does not matter how reasonably
the seller acted or how exemplary is a manufacturer’s quality control system—what matters is
whether the product was defective and the user injured as a result.

The theory of strict liability also comes up occasionally in criminal and traffic cases. The same
general principles apply: an act plus a harm, regardless of intent, equals liability. Speeding is a
good example of a strict liability offense. Statutes allow for drivers to be ticketed and punished
for the strict liability offense of speeding, even when the driver was merely reckless about
monitoring his own speed.
CHAPTER 6: TYPES OF STRICT LIABILITY

There are instances when a person becomes responsible for things that may go wrong even if the
person did not intend for the wrong to occur. In other words, some actions hold a person strictly
liable regardless of the circumstances. Say you owned an exotic Python. If the snake creeps out
of the house and bites your neighbor, you will be held responsible even though you did not let
the snake out. Ownership is enough to hold you responsible.

In other words, strict liability tort means a defendant is held fully liable for any injury sustained
by another party regardless of whether the injury was intended. Dangerous animals are just one
of three major strict liability categories. Strict liability categories include:

 Animals, owned or possessed

 Abnormally dangerous acts
 Product liability

6.1 Animals- owned or possessed

under the Restatement there are three categories of animals strict liability:
a) livestock - the owner or the possessor of livestock is subject to strict liability if the livestock
intrudes upon the land of another physical harm is caused by the intrusion
b) abnormally dangerous animals
c)wild animals- a possessor of a wild animal subject to strict liability to another for harm done
by the animal to the other person's body, land or chattels, even if the possessor has exercised the
utmost care to confine the animal, or otherwise prevent it from doing harm.

Wild animals are animals that have not been generally domesticated.
 6.2Abnormally dangerous activities

one who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to liability for harm to the
person, land or chattels of another resulting from the activity, although has exercised the utmost
care to confine the animal, or otherwise prevent it from doing harm
1. Hazardous wastes
2. The Superfund Act
3. Lateral support
4. Blasting and explosives
5. Nuclear energy
6. Other high-energy activities
7. Utilities
8. Fireworks
9. Poisons

For a plaintiff to recover, he must show that the defendant was carrying on in an abnormally
dangerous activity that proximately caused harm to his person or property.

6.3 Products liability

The restatement states that a product is defective when, at the time of sale or distribution, the
product contained a manufacturing defect, is defective in design, or is defective because of
inadequate instruction or warnings. a plaintiff must prove that the product was defective, the
defect existed when it left the defendant's and that the defect actually and proximately caused his
injury.
 CONCLUSION

The main criticism of strict liability is that it can be seen as unjust, since people can be convicted
where in truth they may have taken all reasonable steps to avoid committing the offence, and are
unaware that they were in fact committing such an offence.
However strict liability can be a worthwhile and effective deterrent. This is because firms or
individuals are aware that merely the act of the offence is sufficient for a conviction and as such
will focus not upon taking reasonable steps necessary to have a valid defense, but upon actually
preventing the prohibited consequence from occurring.

A final point here, is that although strict liability may function as a deterrent; often Parliament
does not specifically state whether an offence is one of strict liability and it can be difficult to
recognize strict liability offences before they are brought before the courts meaning people may
not be deterred, because they are not aware of which offences are strict liability
.
Strict liability, although it can be seen as unfair and unjust in some cases, serves a valuable
purpose in protecting the public. Strict liability should perhaps be reformed in some way, such as
allowing a general defense of due diligence to be available in all cases, which may prevent the
injustice which is the basis for most criticisms.

However in allowing conviction where proving men's read would be near impossible, and, most
importantly, providing a strong deterrent, which encourages firms and individuals to do
everything possible to avoid a prohibited consequence, strict liability is very effective
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books
 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, G.P. Singh, The Law of Torts4- The Chapter XI of this book deals
with subject of the research project.
 P.S.A. Pillai, Law of Tort5. Some information in the research project has been used from
this book.
 B.M. Gandhi, Law of Torts6- Dr. R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts7- This book has been very
helpful in the completion of this project as it covers the subject widely.

Websites
 http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/
 http://uk.practicallaw.com/8-200-1391
 http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t032.htm

4
24th Edition Reprint 2004, Wadhwa & Company
5
Ninth edition Reprinted 2010, Eastern Book Company
6
Third Edition 2006, Eastern Book Company
7
Twenty-Third Edition 2013, Allahabad Law Agency