No fault liability

Generally, to make one liable under law of torts

one must prove violation of legal duty due to:
1. Fault
2. Negligence
3. Wrongful intent of the defendant

In absence of any of them defendant will escape

liability.
• Doctrine of STRICT LIABILITY and ABSOLUTE
LIABILITY are exception to this general rule.

• A person may be liable for some harm even

though he is not negligent in causing the
same or does not intentionally cause it or is
careful or has taken steps to prevent the
same.
 STRICT LIABILITY

This doctrine was developed by Justice

Blackburn in 1868, in the famous case of
Rylands v. Fletcher
RYLANDS V FLETCHER, L.R. 3 H.L. 330
(1868)
Rylands and Fletcher were neighbours. Fletcher
was running a coal mine on lease. Rylands
desired to construct a water reservoir on his
land for storing water and supplying it to the
Ainsworth Mill.
Ryland gave this job to an independent
contractor. Workers of independent contractor,
did not properly pack old disused shafts.
After the completion of the work, when water
was filled in the reservoir, those improperly
packed old disused shafts succumbed to the
pressure and water percolated through to the
coal mine and Fletcher could not carry any work,
thus suffered losses.
He went to the court for redressal.
Q. Can a party be liable for trespass for damage
caused to the land of another, if the damage is a
result of a defect in the party’s land, if the party
did not know of the defect?
The court of Exchequer dismissed the claim
stating that there is no valid case, no negligence
on part of fletcher. No vicarious liability as work
was done by independent contractor.
• The case went on appeal to the Court of Exchequer Chamber.

• Issue 1: Is an absolute duty imposed on a landowner who lawfully brings

something onto his land which, while harmless while it remains there, will
naturally cause damage if it escapes?

• Issue 2: Will a party be liable for damage caused by a thing or activity that
is unduly dangerous and inappropriate in a certain place, in light of the
character of the place and its surroundings?

Blackburn J delivered the judgment and held inespite the absence of proof of
negligence on the part of Mr. Rylands, he was held liable, according to
Blackburn J's classic principle:

• “ We think that the true rule of law is, that a person who for his own
purposes brings on his lands 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.
 House of Lords
• The House of Lords aptly observed:
• “ If a person brings or accumulates on his land
anything which, if it escape may cause
damage to his neighbours he does so at his
peril. If it does escape and cause damage he is
responsible, however, careful he may have
been, and whatever precaution he may have
to prevent the damage”.
Read v Lyons , [1947] AC 157 at p. 173
(HL)

• Appellant was employed as an Inspector of

Ammunition. She was injured by the explosion
of a shell while she was on respondent’s
premises in the performance of her duties.
even there was no proof of negligence.
• Lord Macmillan stated that 'the doctrine of
Rylands v Fletcher … derives from a
conception of mutual duties of adjoining
landowners and its congeners are trespass
and nuisance'
• Viscount Simon :
two essential conditions to make one liable
under doctrine of strict liability.
1. Escape’
No escape, no liability
escape from a place where the defendant has
occupation of or control over land to a place
which is outside his occupation or control.

2. ‘Non-natural use of land’

 Illustration
• if the blasting damages you-no matter how
careful the blasting was – it is liable for the
injury.
• The defendant is liable to the neighbor for
emission of harmful gases with offensive smell
from his big ore melting furnace.
• constructing a dam which diverted water from
its natural channel on the land of the
neighbour.
 Essentials of strict liability
• Dangerous things
• Escape
• Non natural use of land
 Sochacki vs Sas, (1947) 1 All ER 344
• Sas who was a lodger in Sochacki’s house, lit a fire
in his room and went out. While he was out, his
room caught fire may be due to jumping of
a spark. it spread and damaged Sochacki’s
property in the rest of the house.
• There was no evidence of negligence on the part
of Sas.
• Held - Sas was not liable under strict liability since
his use of the fire in his grate was an ordinary,
natural, proper, everyday use of a fire place in a
room.
 T. C. Balkrishna Menon v. T.R.
Subramanian , AIR 1968 Mad. 151

• The Court held that the use of explosives in an

open field on the occasion of festival is a “non-
natural” user of land.
State of Punjabv. Modern Cultivators,
AIR 1965 SC 17
• Due to overflow of water from canal damage
was done to plaintiff’s property.
• The Supreme Court held that use of land for
construction of a canal system is a normal use
and thus not non natural use of land.
 Mukesh Textile Mills v. Subramanya
Sastry AIR 1987 Kar. 87
• A was owner of a sugar factory. B owned land
adjacent to A’s sugar factory. A stored quantity
of molasses and it escaped to B’s land and
damaged his crop. B sued A.
• Collecting molasses in large quantities was
held by the Court to be non natural use of
land and if a person collected such things on
his land and escaped to neighbours land, he
will be liable.
 Defences
• Plaintiff’s consent:
Carstairs vs Taylor, 1871, LR 6 Ex 217

• Plaintiff’s own default:

Ponting v Noakes(1994), the claimant’s horse died after it had
reached over the defendant’s fence and ate some leaves from a
Yew tree. The defendant was not liable under Rylands v Fletcher
as the Yew tree was entirely in the confines of the defendant’s
land and there had therefore been no escape.

• Act of third party:

Box v Jabb, (1879) 4 Ex D76, the reservoir of the defendant
overflowed because of a blockage in the drains by strangers. Not
liable
Northwesterrn Utilities vs London Guarantee and Accident Co.
(1936) AC.
 • Act of God:
Nichols v Marsland, 1875 LRR 10 Ex

• Statutory Authority:
Green v Chelsea Co. (1894), the defendant
company had a statutory duty to maintain
continuous supply of water. A main belonging to the
company burst without any negligence on its part,
as a consequence of which the plaintiff’s premises
were flooded with water. It was held that the
company was not liable as the company was
engaged in performing a statutory duty
 Dunne vs. North Western Gas Board
(1964) 2 QB 806.
Gas escaped from a gas main caused by a burst
water main. The gas travelled along a sewer and
was ignited causing a series of explosions
resulting in injuries to five claimants. One was
blown off her bicycle, two young children were
injured playing in the street and a husband and
wife suffered injuries in their home.
 Court observed:
• Gas escaped and did damage without any
negligence on the part of the defendants or of
anyone else.
• It is not a case similar to the case of Rylands v.
Fletcher, where defendant ’ s liability could simply
have been placed on the defendant ’ s failure of
duty to take reasonable care to protect the
adjacent mine.
• The Gas Board had not accumulated gas for their
own purposes.
Pearson vs. North Western Gas Board
(1968) 2 All ER 669 .
• plaintiff was seriously injured in an explosion
of gas, which also destroyed her home, killed
her husband. Her action in Court failed, in
view of the decision in Dunne vs. North
Western Gas Board.
 Winfield
observed that : the various limitations and
exceptions to the rule, have virtually reached
the position where a defendant will not be
considered liable when he would not be liable
according to the ordinary principles of
negligence.
This repudiation of the principle in Rylands vs.
Fletcher is contrary to the modern judicial
philosophy of social justice.
• England, in 1978, the Royal Commission on
Civil Liability and Personal Injury headed by
Pearson recommended the introduction of
strict liability in a number of circumstances
such as no fault insurance scheme for road
traffic and industrial accidents.
 India
• Article 38(1) of the Constitution of India
provide that being a welfare state, it is the
duty of the State under our Constitution to
look after the welfare of all its citizens.
• Thus, in various social welfare statutes,
principle of strict liability has been provided to
give insurance to people against death and
injuries, irrespective of fault.
• Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation
Act 1923
• Section 124A of the Railways Act 1989 ,
• Sections 140 and 163A of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 ,
• the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991
• Rule of strict liability has been applied, upheld
by the Indian Courts. However the oleum leak
disaster case of 1985 sounded the death knell
of this doctrine.
Absolute liability
 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India , AIR
1987 SC 1086
• Oleum gas leaked from one of the units of
Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries in
New Delhi. It resulted into death of one of the
advocate and caused serious injuries to
several others.
• A writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution was brought by way of PIL.
The SC rejected the application of the
rule of strict liability in the following
words:
• Law has to grow in order to satisfy the needs
of the fast changing society and keep abreast
with the economic developments, taking place
in this country.
• Law cannot allow our judicial thinking to be
constrained by reference of the law as it
prevails in England or for the matter of that in
any other foreign legal order.”
• Doctrine of Strict liability evolved in the 19th
Century at a time when all these
developments of science and technology had
not taken place cannot afford any guidance in
evolving any standard of liability consistent
with the constitutional norm and the needs of
the present day economy and social structure.
 Evolution of Principle of Absolute
liability
• Bhagwati, C.J
• An enterprise, which is engaged in hazardous or
inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential
threat to the health and safety of the persons working
in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas
owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the
community to ensure that no harm results to anyone
on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous
activity which it has undertaken.”
• It further held that, “Application of exceptions to this
rule is inapplicable.”
Charan Lal Sahu vs Union of India, AIR
1990 SC 1480
• “The enterprise carrying on hazardous or
inherently dangerous activity for private profit
has a social obligation to compensate all those
who suffer on account of the carrying on of
such hazardous or inherently dangerous
activity regardless of whether it is carried on
carefully or not.
• The enterprise alone has the resource to
discover and guard against hazards or
dangers.
 Union Carbide Corporation v. Union
of India , AIR 1992 SC 248
• In December, 1984 Methyl IsoCyanate (MIC) and
other toxic gases leaked from the Union Carbide
Corporation India Ltd. at Bhopal. About 2660
people died, several thousand suffered serious
injuries which did not die with that generation
but also in cases got transferred to their next
generation.
• The Court on applying the principle of absolute
liability held the defendant liable to pay US $470
Million dollars by way of compensation to the
victims or relatives of the victims.
• It also requested UCC and its subsidiary
voluntarily to fund a hospital, at an
estimated$17million to specifically treat the
victims of the disaster

• By the end of October 2003 compensation was

awarded to 554895 for injuries receivedand
15310 survivors for those that were killed. The
average amount to the families of thedead was
US $2200.
 Indian Council of Enviro-Legal Action
v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1466.
• The issues were two-fold in the case:
• Should the Corporation be held responsible to
meet the cost of the remedial action to
remove and store the sludge in safe and
proper manner?
• Should they be made liable for the loss and
suffering caused to the village where the
industrial complex was located?
• ‘Generator is responsible ’ is the universal
principle holding the health care
establishments legally accountable for
damage caused by waste management
processes.
• it was called as a rule of “Polluter pays”, and
stated that the industry alone has the
resources to discover and guard against
hazards and dangers caused by its actions.
• persons affected do not have this ability and
as well as is also difficult for the victim to
establish the absence of reasonable care or
foreseeability of the industry.
• respondent’s liability not only for
environmental hazards, but also the cost of all
measures including remedial measures
recovered from them.