Skip to main content

RATIONALE OF STRICT LIABILITY

 RATIONALE OF STRICT LIABILITY

By: Robin Pandey                                                                                             Date: 13/03/2022

Many activities, now more than ever, exact a high toll of life, limb and property. Faced with this situation, society may adopt any one of three possible courses. (1) It may proscri1be the activity altogether, as by a statute declaring it illegal or a Court enjoining it as a nuisance. (2) Alternatively it may choose to incur the danger of the enterprise for the sake of its social utility but forbid it to be carried on except under specified conditions or in a prescribed manner: hence the proliferation of safety statutes enforced by licensing. Inspection, criminal penalties and the doctrine of negligence per se. (3) Or it may decide to tolerate the activity on condition that it pays its way regardless of whether it is carried out carelessly or not. This last is the solution of strict liability. The defendant is held liable not for any particular fault occurring in the course of the operation, but for the inevitable consequences of a dangerous activity which could be stigmatised as negligent on account of its foreseeable harmful potentialities, were it not for the fact that its generally beneficial character requires us to tolerate it in the public interest.

In one sense, strict liability is but another aspect of negligence, both being based on responsibility for the creation of an abnormal risk. Negligence, however, has been concerned primarily with an improper manner of doing things which are safe (and therefore reasonable) enough when properly carried out, and not with activities which remain dangerous despite all reasonable precaution. The explanation for this lies in the dilemma that if such an activity were branded as negligent on account of its irreducible risk, it would be tantamount to condemning it as unlawful.

Some activities, no doubt, deserve that fate either because the object they serve is not sufficiently beneficial or because it can be attained in a safe manner.  Other activities however, may have to be tolerated despite their irreducible risk, like drilling for oil and gas, testing rockets, flying high speed aircraft and driving motor vehicles. These should not be penalised as reprehensible by labelling them negligent although the risk they entail may not be avoidable (at least statistically) despite all possible precaution. If all the same they should pay their way, it must be on some principle other than negligence. That principle is strict liability. 

The rationale behind strict liability is that the activities coming within its fold are those entailing extraordinary risk to others either in the seriousness or the frequency of the harm threatened. Permission to conduct such an activity is in effect made conditional on its absorbing the cost of the accidents it causes, as an appropriate item of its overhead. 

In accordance with general principles of causality, this exceptional liability should apply only to harm within the scope of the abnormal risk which provided the reason for strict liability. Strict liability is as yet unorganised and fragmentary in application. Courts have openly endorsed it only in cases where the non-negligent creation of serious risk arises from an abnormal or hazardous activity. Just as a major "public benefit" flowing from a hazardous activity (like nuclear power stations and other public utilities) is no longer a good reason for leaving it unburdened but rather reinforces the wisdom of distributing the loss among its beneficiaries, so the very fact that it is widespread and exposes the community to a typical hazard may furnish a sufficient reason for tolerating it only on condition that it pay its own passage.

American law has been somewhat bolder. After an at first cool reception, strict liability is now generally applied to "abnormally dangerous" activities, that is, those with inherent risks that cannot be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care. An even clearer perspective guided the Pearson Commission in its recommendation to impose strict liability on controllers of things or operations in each of two categories first, those which by their unusually dangerous nature require the closest supervision, like flammable chemicals, and secondly, those which pose a risk of serious and extensive casualties, like public bridges, stadiums and large buildings. Especially the second category and the additional proposal of strict liability for vaccine damage and medical research volunteers clearly reject the plea for exemption of publicly beneficial projects.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

INCOME TAX SECTION 32AD - Investment in new plant or machinery in notified backward areas in certain States

 Description (1) Where an assessee, sets up an undertaking or enterprise for manufacture or production of any article or thing, on or after the 1st day of April, 2015 in any backward area notified by the Central Government in this behalf, in the State of Andhra Pradesh or in the State of Bihar or in the State of Telangana or in the State of West Bengal, and acquires and installs any new asset for the purposes of the said undertaking or enterprise during the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 2015 and ending before the 1st day of April, 2020 in the said backward area, then, there shall be allowed a deduction of a sum equal to fifteen per cent of the actual cost of such new asset for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such new asset is installed. (2) If any new asset acquired and installed by the assessee is sold or otherwise transferred, except in connection with the amalgamation or demerger or re-organisation of business referred to in clause (xiii)or cla

60 Minute Marriage Counselling Session On Phone

Description A 60 minute phone call with an expert Marriage\Relationship Counselor to discuss your marriage\relationship related issues. Counselling aims to resolve issues and improve communication in a relationship. Couples’ counselling works with both people in the relationship, however sessions can start with one individual, working towards the involvement of the other partner. What's Included a) 60 minute phone call with the counselor where you can discuss all your issues and seek guidance. What's Not Included a) Counselling session via meeting

Send Legal Notice for Divorce

 India being a secular country derives a large part of its laws from various religious practices. One such area of law is Divorce law of India. A divorce case in India can be initiated by either party based on the procedure relevant as per the law applicable to the parties. However, the procedure for divorce always starts with sending a legal notice.   Either party can send a legal notice to the other spouse intimating his/her intent to initiate legal proceedings for divorce. Sending a legal notice acts as a formal way of communication by one party to the other acting as a warning and at the same time creating chances for a last attempt for conciliation, if possible. Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue   What is a legal notice for divorce? A legal notice refers to a formal communication to a person or the opposite party in a case, informing him/her about one’s intention to undertake legal proceedings against him/her. Therefore, a legal notice for divorce is a formal inti