Skip to main content

Strict and absolute liability

 


Strict and absolute liability

By swatee shukla

One of the fundamental principles of torts is that a person can be held liable only if he has caused harm. However, as things stand this principle has been modified to include the situations where a person can be held liable for the harm he did not cause either negligently or negligently.in such a situation a person can be held liable even though he is not responsible for the harm. This is also known as ‘no-fault liability. Both strict and absolute liability are called no-fault liability because, if there was a fault of the defendant, the same tort would convert to negligence. 

This principle of strict liability finds its origin after the famous English case called Rylands v. Fletcher (1868). After this case supreme court laid down this principle of strict liability. This principle states that if a person brings a potentially dangerous thing on his land, and if such a thing escapes and does damage, then such person should be held responsible, even if he were not negligent. For the application of this rule, three essentials are necessary. Firstly, some dangerous thing must have been brought by a person on his land. That means it is necessary for a thing escaping from one’s land to be a dangerous thing i. e. things likely to do mischief if it escapes. This rule has been applied to dangerous things such as electricity, vibration, sewage, explosives, snakes, etc. 

Secondly, it must be a non-natural use of land. For the use of land to be non-natural, it must be some other use with its increased danger to others, and must not merely be the ordinary use of land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of a community. For example, if an overhead tank is used by a resident, it would be deemed a natural use, while constructing a very large reservoir and its use was deemed unnatural by the British court while deciding the case of Rylands v. Fletcher. Thus, if the natural use of the water tank resulted in some sort of leakage into the neighbor’s premises, it would not be deemed as a tort where the rule of strict liability lies. 

The third essential that is necessary for the application of the rule of strict liability is that the thing thus brought or kept by a person o his land must escape and cause liability. That means, it is also essential that the thing causing the damage must escape to the area outside the occupation and control of the defendant and cause mischief or damage to the plaintiff. 

Absolute liability- absolute liability is similar to strict liability, the only difference being that there are no defenses available in absolute liability. This rule would be applicable only when extremely dangerous activities are involved. This is a principle developed in the Indian court.

in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India(1987). In this case, there was a leakage of Oleum gas from one of the units of Sriram Industries in Delhi, this resulting in injury to several people. The supreme court of India moved beyond the principle of strict liability and evolved a new rule creating absolute liability for harm caused by hazardous industries. This liability has no defense at all if ingredients can be proved. The logic used was that a person who carries on a dangerous activity for profit is responsible for any harm that may flow from such activity, and also that the enterprise alone has the opportunity and resources to discover and guard against such hazards or dangers. This principle was followed in the famous Bhopal gas leak case as well as other environmental pollution cases where general masses suffered adversely. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more