Strict Liability

What is Strict Liability in tort?

The Rule of Strict Liability in Tort is used in the Law of Torts. According to the Rule of Strict Liability in tort, individuals are required to pay damages even when they are not at fault. Put another way, even if someone takes all the required safety measures, they still have to compensate the victims. In reality, this principle is frequently stipulated as a requirement in permits permitting such activities.

The fundamental tenet of tort law is that damages are awarded based, in most cases, on how much care is taken. Therefore, the law can spare him from paying damages if he takes great care to avoid causing harm. Strict liability in tort, however, is not covered by this principle.

Strict Liability Meaning

In tort law, the idea of "strict liability in tort" is sometimes known as "no-fault liability," which succinctly explains the idea that "liability would exist irrespective of any fault." Some activities are so harmful by nature that the person engaging in them must make up for any harm they cause, regardless of whether they were negligent. The predictable risk associated with these kinds of activity serves as justification for establishing such liability. In the Rylands v. Fletcher case, the House of Lords initially adopted this approach.

Origin of the Rule of Strict Liability in Jurisprudence

The origin of the Rule of Strict Liability Under the Law of Torts can be traced back to the famous case of Rylands v. Fletcher. In this case, The defendant desired to enhance the water supply to his mill. He hired a reputable engineering firm to build a nearby reservoir for this reason.

The issue arose one day when the reservoir became so full that the water began to overflow. With such power the water surged into the plaintiff's mine, causing damage to everything.

It was obvious that the engineers, who worked as independent contractors for the defendant, were to blame. This is a result of their carelessness when building the reservoir. To absolve himself of responsibility, the defendant said just this as well.

In this case, the court held that the strict responsibility rule in its ruling. It stated that anything kept on one's property for personal use shouldn't leak out and harm other people. Even if the owner of that thing was not careless, he still has to pay the victim if it escapes.

Essentials of the Rule of Strict Liability in Jurisprudence

Presence of a Dangerous Thing

A person is only "strictly liable" when a hazardous material escapes from their territory. Substances that have the potential to damage or cause havoc if they escape are considered dangerous. A sizable body of water was one such harmful thing in Rylands' instance. Vibrations, electricity, gas, sewage, explosives, rusty wires, etc. were all deemed unsafe in several additional tort instances.

Escape from the Dangerous Substance

The substance must escape from the premises and remain out of the defendant's reach after it does so for the defendant to be held strictly accountable. For example, the defendant's land contains certain toxic plants. The plaintiff's cattle consume leaves from the plant that have entered his land, leading to their demise. The loss will be the defendant's responsibility. However, the defendant would not be held accountable if the plaintiff's cattle entered the defendant's property, consumed the toxic leaves, and perished.

Occurrence of Damage

The plaintiff must have incurred damages directly related to the dangerous item that escaped. In the case of, Weller v. Foot and Mouth Disease Institute, It was decided that there was enough damage when the defendant's firm failed as a result of the government's closure of the cattle market.

Non-natural Use

There must be a non-natural use of the land for it to be considered a strict liability. In the case of, Richard v. Lothian "Some special use bringing with it increased danger to others and not merely the ordinary use of the land or such a use as it proper for the general benefit for the community," according to Lord Multon, is what is meant to be considered an unnatural use of land.

The courts would make such a determination after taking into account all relevant social and environmental factors. For instance, in Ryland's case, storing large amounts of water was deemed to be an unnatural use of the land, although storing such water for regular household purposes would have been a natural use of the land.

Exceptions to the Rule of Strict Liability

Act of God

An act of God is a sudden, unpredictably occurring, and irresistible act of nature for which no one can prepare. No matter how many measures you take, it might still do damage. Natural disasters like as earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, and heavy rains are considered divine actions. Strict responsibility does not apply to any harm that results from these activities.

Third-party Committing an Unlawful Act

Damages can sometimes be the result of third parties' involvement. For instance, remodelling work in one apartment might annoy residents in another. In this case, the irritated renter is not allowed to take his landlord to court. The only person he may sue is the one remodelling the other apartment.

Claiment’s Own Fault

In a few cases, the plaintiff might be partially to blame for the harm he experiences. No matter how much he is harmed, he cannot assign responsibility under these circumstances.

Statutory Authority

If an act is performed under a statute or law, such as when it is performed by government officials, it cannot be held strictly accountable. In the case of, Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Co. It was decided that in cases where the defendant's business was hired by the government to maintain an uninterrupted water supply, the defendant would not be held liable for the water supply's interruption and would be entitled to statutory protection.

Common Benefit of Both Parties

Strict responsibility would not apply in torts if the source of the hazard is preserved for the mutual advantage of the plaintiff and defendant. In the case of, Box v. Jubb both the plaintiff's reservoir and the defendant's actions both contributed to the defendant's reservoir overflowing. It was decided that as these reservoirs were placed for the mutual advantage of both parties, the defendant could not be held accountable.

Rule of Absolute Liability

The Origin of the Rule of Strict Liability can be traced back to the landmark case of M.C Mehta v. Union of India also known as the Oleum Gas Leak case. In one instance, hazardous oleum gas leaked from a Shriram Foods & Fertilizer Industries facility. Because of the gas, the nearby industries and people have experienced severe damage. Even though the strict liability rule was very stringent, the Supreme Court decided that it was no longer acceptable in the modern era. This is because scientific developments have increased the risk and peril involved in contemporary corporate endeavours. The court adopted the absolute liability rule as a result of this case.

There are never any situations when strict liability does not apply, according to the absolute liability rule. Consequently, individuals who damage others will be held completely responsible for making amends and compensating victims fairly. Indian courts have regularly used this law to prohibit it.

Difference Between Strict Liability and Absolute Liability

Strict Liability Case Laws

In the case of, Carstairs v. Taylor

In this case, The defendant rented the ground level of a building to the plaintiff. Defendant occupied the higher floor. Without the defendant's carelessness, water kept on the top floor leaked. The plaintiff's possessions on the bottom floor were ruined by the water. The defendant was not held accountable since the water had been kept for the advantage of both parties.

In the case of, Eastern and South African Telegraph Co. Ltd. v. Capetown Tramways Co.

In this case, Electric current escaping from the defendant's tramways interfered with the plaintiff's underwater cable communications. The defendant was not held accountable for the escape since it was determined that the damage was caused by the plaintiff's apparatus's unique sensitivity, and harm of this kind wouldn't happen to someone conducting regular business.

Conclusion

The Rule of Strict Liability is an exception or remedy under the Law of Torts. The origin of the Rule of Strict Liability can be traced back to the case of Rylands v. Fletcher. According to the Rule of Strict Liability When a person uses any hazardous substance and the substance goes out of control and escapes causing damage to the other person then in such cases the Rule of Strict Liability Comes into use. This article provides a detailed explanation of the Rules of Strict Liability along with the Rule of Absolute Liability.