Absolute Liability under Tort Law

What is Liability

Liability refers to an obligation on the defendants for any Negligence or mischief which some way or the other causes injury or damage to the plaintiff. Liabilities are mostly in the form of financial compensation to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff for the damages incurred by the plaintiff.

Constitutional Basis of Absolute Liability

The Constitution of India, in its articles below, provides the ideas of Absolute Liability

• Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
  Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life, which has been judicially interpreted by the Supreme Court of India to include the right to live in a clean, healthy, and pollution-free environment. The doctrine of Absolute Liability is constitutionally rooted in this expanded meaning of Article 21. When hazardous or inherently dangerous industries cause harm to life or health, it amounts to a direct violation of Article 21, thereby justifying strict and absolute accountability without any exceptions.
• Article 48A – Directive Principle for Environmental Protection
  Article 48A mandates the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife. Although Directive Principles are non-justiciable, the courts rely on them to interpret Fundamental Rights. Absolute Liability draws constitutional strength from Article 48A by placing a higher duty on industries engaged in dangerous activities to ensure environmental safety and to compensate victims when harm occurs.
• Article 51A(g) – Fundamental Duty of Citizens
  Article 51A(g) imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment. Industries and corporations, being juristic persons, are also bound by this duty. The principle of Absolute Liability complements this duty by ensuring that any breach leading to environmental or human harm attracts immediate liability, reinforcing constitutional environmental responsibility.
• Article 32 – Right to Constitutional Remedies
  Article 32 empowers individuals to approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Victims of industrial disasters involving hazardous substances can invoke Article 32 to seek compensation, remedies, and preventive measures. The evolution of Absolute Liability was facilitated through Public Interest Litigations under Article 32, enabling the Court to craft constitutional remedies beyond traditional tort principles.
• Judicial Interpretation under Constitutional Powers
  The doctrine of Absolute Liability was evolved through judicial interpretation, most notably in MC Mehta v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court used its constitutional authority to go beyond English common law principles. The Court held that enterprises engaged in hazardous activities owe an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community, grounded in constitutional values of social justice and human dignity.
• Preamble – Social, Economic, and Environmental Justice
  The Preamble to the Constitution envisions social and economic justice. Absolute Liability aligns with this objective by ensuring that victims of industrial accidents—often poor and vulnerable—are not denied justice due to technical defences. By imposing strict accountability, the doctrine upholds the constitutional promise of a just and humane social order.

Types of Liability

Below are the types of Liability under the Law of Torts

Contingent Liability

Contingent liability is a liability that depends on the happening or non-happening of a future event. The liability in the case of a Contingent contract occurs when an act that will occur in the future does not occur or any party to a contract fails or refuses to perform the promises made in a contract.

Non-Current Liabilities

Long-term liabilities are known as non-current liabilities and are to be discharged within the next year or 12-month time period. This type of liability plays a very important role in loans which are long-term or EMIs.

What is Absolute Liability in Tort

Under the ambit of Absolute Liability, a defendant is held liable for the actions done by him which caused damages to the plaintiff. In Absolute Liability it is not taken into consideration whether the defendant has taken absolute care to prevent the act from happening or not he will be made liable for the acts. In Absolute Liability, the liability is placed on the defendant and there is no scope for the need to prove carelessness or negligence.

The main aim of the Rule of Absolute liability under the tort is to save the public interest of the common people. There are certain actions and activities which can bring a big amount of hazard due to activities by any hazardous industry in this case the parties are held liable.

Origin of the Rule of Absolute Liability in Tort

The Rule of Absolute Liability under the Law of Torts was evolved by a judgement by the Supreme Court in the case of M.C Mehta v. Union of India also known as the Oleuim Gas Tragedy Case.

In the case of MC Mehta v. Union of India, hazardous oleum gas leaked from a Shriram Foods & Fertilizer Industries facility. The surrounding industries and individuals have suffered significant harm due to the gas. The defendant would be accountable for the harm inflicted without taking into account the strict liability rule's exceptions, according to the Apex Court, which subsequently developed the concept of absolute culpability based on the strict liability rule.

The Supreme Court in this case Further delivered that the Rule of Strict Liability laid down in the case of Ryland v. Fletcher was not enough to deal with hazardous cases and the magnitude of the damages caused by the act is so high that the provision laid down by the Rule of Strict Liability will not be able to provide sufficient relief to the plaintiff.

Scope of the Rule of Absolute Liability in tort

The Rule of Absolute Liability has a wider scope in the Indian law system compared to the Rule of Strict Liability. The Rule of Absolute Liability is an exception to the common law of damages. The Rule of Absolute Liability was the result of the Catstropic Oleum Gas Tragedy case. After this hazardous disaster in the history of India where many people lost their lives the Public Liability Insurance Act 1991 was established with the main objective of providing sufficient relief to the victims of such tragedy or accident in which the work is related to handling a substance which is hazardous and can cause a great amount of damage to the people’s well being.

The main aim behind the introduction of this act was to establish a public liability insurance which would be used in times of disaster which will eventually bring a great deal of damage to the people and this act will help to provide sufficient relief to the victims. Section 2(c) of the Public Liability Insurance Act 1991 mentions it.

Absolute Liability Case Laws

The Famous case of M.C Mehta v. Union of India also known as the Oleum Gas Leak case gave the way to the concept of Absolute liability in the law of tort in India. Before Absolute Liability was introduced in India, India followed the British-made Strict Liability. Just like the concept of absolute liability, strict liability was also introduced in the famous case of Ryland v. Fletcher.

After the Bhopal Gas Tragedy which was one of the worst man-made disasters in India, where many people lost their lives and many had to face permanent loss of body organs there were exceptions under the strict liability in India to make the people liable for their acts. The Supreme Court of India delivered the Rule of Absolute Liability and has a much wider scope in comparison to the rule of Strict Liability as introduced in Rylands v/s Fletcher by the House of Lords. This article describes the rule of Absolute Liability and its uses in the Indian law system under Legal Studies.

Principles of Absolute Liability

The essential elements of the Rule of Absolute Liability in Tort Law are as follows-

Dangerous thing

Liability will only materialize if anything hazardous has escaped from the land owned by the owner. The hazardous substance that has escaped from the land of the owner should cause damage or injury to someone else or neighbours' property. Hazardous substances like large water tanks, explosive objects etc.

Escape

If in a case, where any hazardous substance gets out of the control of the defendants due to negligence or carelessness and the hazardous substances cause any injury to the plaintiff then the defendant will be held liable.

In the case of Read v. Lyons and Co.

The plaintiff in this case was employed by the defendant's manufacturing company. When a manufactured part exploded while she was doing her job, she suffered severe injuries. In this instance, the court found that the plaintiff was carrying out her duties when the accident occurred on business premises and during regular business hours. It was determined that the defendant could not escape his obligations and that the strict responsibility theory did not apply in this case. The defendant was at fault.

Un-natural uses of Land

Gathering water for personal use is not regarded as a non-natural use of land; however, gathering large amounts of water, like building a reservoir, is.

It was believed that the water collected in the reservoir was not a natural use of the land in the Rylands v. Fletcher case. The Court decided that mill power storage is not a natural use while storing water for domestic use is. The meaning of unnatural in this case means anything which is manmade and most likely to cause damage.

Mischief Committed

Any mischief must have to be committed by the defendant which is man-made and is likely to cause damage to the plaintiff’s property and health. Misusing of land for building a large water tank can be an example of this.

In the case of Charing Cross Electric Supply Co. v. Hydraulic Power Co.

The defendant was tasked with providing water at several different sites. The defendant failed to maintain the necessary minimum pressure, which caused the pipeline to burst many times. The plaintiff suffered large losses as a result. In this instance, the defendant was held accountable despite not being at fault.

Difference between Strict Liability and Absolute liability

Conclusion

This article describes the Rule of Absolute Liability under the law of Tort. The Rule of Absolute Liability has been given wide scope in the Indian Law system. In the case of M.C Mehta v. Union of India the Rule of Absolute Liability was introduced to deal with the hazardous acts by which people have to face damages. This rule acts as a remedy for the people who are subject to such damages. This act was introduced for circumstances under which the Rule of Strict Liability will not be able to provide sufficient relief to the victims.