Skip to main content

Absolute liability

 Absolute Liability

To put it another way, absolute responsibility is strict liability without exclusions.

In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the rule of absolute liability was developed, which went one step further than strict liability by stating that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is absolutely liable for any harm resulting from the operation of such activity and must compensate all those who are harmed by the accident.

Facts: On the 4th and 6th of December, 1985, in Delhi, a serious oleum gas leak occurred at one of the Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries plants, which belonged to the Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. An advocate practicing at the Tis Hazari Court died as a result of this, and many others were impacted. The court was served with a writ petition in the form of a public interest lawsuit (PIL).

It was argued that if all tragedies resulting from the actions of huge manufacturers follow the strict responsibility rule, they would fall within the exceptions and be exempt from accountability for the harm they have inflicted in the course of their business.

The Court noted that this was the second large-scale leaking of dangerous gas in India within a year, since more than 3000 people had died a year earlier as a result of the leakage of gas from the Union Carbide facility in Bhopal, and lakhs of others had been exposed to severe ailments. If the strict liability rule established in Rylands v. Fletcher were applied to such scenarios, people who had created "hazardous and intrinsically dangerous" enterprises in and near densely inhabited regions may avoid culpability by alleging some exemption.

As a result, the Supreme Court developed a new rule, dubbed "Absolute Liability" by then-Chairman of the Supreme Court of India, PN Bhagwati.

It stated explicitly that the new rule would not be susceptible to any of the exclusions found in Rylands v. Fletcher. The regulation was justified by the Court for two reasons:

The business that engages in such hazardous and intrinsically risky activity for private profit has a social duty to compensate people who are harmed, and it should absorb such losses as overhead; and the business alone has the resources to uncover and defend against such risks and dangers.

"If the enterprise is permitted to carry on any hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for profit, the law must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident arising from such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate item of its overheads," the Court stated. This notion is also tenable since the company has the resources to detect and defend against risks or dangers, as well as to issue warnings in the event of a possible hazard."

The Court further said that the amount of compensation payable should be proportional to the enterprise's capabilities, in order to have a deterrence effect, with bigger and more profitable businesses contributing more recompense for the harm they have caused.
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