Rule of Absolute liability and strict liability

Introduction:- Generally a person could be made liable in any kind of tort only when he was either negligently or committed an intentional tort. But under the rule of "Absolute liability" a person is made liable even if he is neither negligent nor willfully commits a tort. Absolutely liability is therefore an exception under the law of tort where the liability of a person arises even if he is not at fault. In this context the rule laid down in two cases , firstly in the decision of the house of lord in *RYLANDS V. FLETCHER*, and secondly in the decision of the Supreme court of india in *M.C. MEHTA V. UNION OF INDIA*.

The rule laid down in RYLANDS V. FLETCHER
Is generally known as THE RULE OF RYLANDS V. FLETCHER or Rule of strictl Liability. Because of various exception to the applicability of this rule ,it would be preferable to call it the rule of strict liability.

While formulating the rule in M.C. MEHTA VS. UNION OF INDIA the Supreme Court itself termed the liability recognized in this case as ABSOLUTE LIABILITY, expressly stated that such liability will not be subject to such exception as have been recognized under RYLANDS VS. FLETCHER.

THE RULE OF STRICT LIABILITY:- It has been noted that in RYLANDS V. FLETCHER in 1868, the House of Lord laid down the rule recognizing "No Fault Liability". The liability recognized was strict liability i.e., even if the defendant was not negligent or rather even if the defendant didn't intentionally cause the harm or he was careful, he could still be made liable under this rule.

In RYLANDS V. FLETCHER, the defendant git a reservoir constructed, through independent contractor,over his land for providing water to his mill. There were old disused shatfs under the site of the reservoir, wich the contractor failed to observe and so didn't block them. When the water was filled in the reservoir, it brust through the shafts and flooded the plaintiff's coal mines on the adjoining land. The defendant didn't know of the shafts and had not been negligent although independent contractor had been. Even though the defendant had not been negligent, he was held liable.
Basis of the liability in the above case was the following rule propounded by the Blackburn,J.:
" We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes bring on his lands and collects and keeps there anything legally to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie and answerable for all the damages which his the natural consequences of it escapes".

After laying down the above rule, he stated a little later (which may be regarded as exception) that the defendant "can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff's default; or perhaps that the escape was the consequence of vis major, or the act of God; but as nothing of this short exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient". From the above, it appears that there must be to basic requirements in order to apply the rule laid down by Justice Blackburn along with the clarifications made by the House of Lord's :
(A) escape from one land to another
(B) non-natural use of land

(A)Escape:- in order to apply the rule of strict liability it must be proved tht the dangerous things actually escaped from the area outside the occupation and control of the defendant i.e.,in other words, dangerous things escaped from the defendant's land on to the land of another and caused damage.  For e.g., in the case of BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY. Here the poisonous gas escaped from the premises of UNION CARBIDE COMPANY on to the lands and premises of other persons and injured/killed thousands of persons. Where, however, the damage is within the defendant's boundaries, the rule can't be applied.

Thus, if there is projection of the branches of a poisonous tree on the neighbour's land,this amounts to an escape and if the cattle lawfully there on the neighbour's land are poisoned by eating the leaves on the same, the defendant will not be liable under the rule. But, if the plaintiff's horse intrudes over the boundary and dies by nibbling the leaves of a poisonous tree there, the defendant can't be liable because there is no escape of the vegetation in this case

(B) Non-natural use of land:- Water collected in the reservoir in such a huge quantity in RYLANDS V. FLETCHER was held to be non-natural use of the land. Keeping water for ordinary domestic purposes is 'natural use'. For the use to be non-natural, it "must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to other, and must must not merely by the ordinary use of land on such a use as is proper fir the general benefit of community". In SOCHACKI V. SAS, it has been held bmthatbtge fire in a house in a great is an ordinary, natural, proper, everyday use of the fire place in a room. If this fire spreads to the adjoining premises, the liability under the rule in RYLANDS V. FLETCHER can't arise.

Thus it is necessary for applicability of the rule of RYLANDS V. FLETCHER,  there must be non-natural use of the land; like growing of a poisonous tree.

Exception to the rule of strict liability: Apart from natural use of land and non-escape of thing from one land to another, the following defences to the rule have been recognized by RYLANDS V. FLETCHER and some later decisions.
(A) default of the plaintiff;
(B) act of God ;
(C) consent of the plaintiff;
(D)act of stranger ;
(E) statutory authority
If anyone of above stated exceptions or defence is in application in any kind of mishap or dange than the defendant will not be liable to pay the damages to the plaintiff.

THE RULE OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY:-
If an industry or enterprise is engaged in some inherently dangerous activity from which it is deriving commercial gain and that activity is capable of causing catastrophic damage than the industry officials are absolutely liable to pay compensation to the aggrieved parties. The industry can't pead that all safety measures were taken care of by them and that there was no negligence on their parts. They will not be allowed any exception neither can they taken up any defend like that of 'act of stranger' or 'act of God'.
 The following doctrine of Absolute liability that prevents the defendants from laking of any defence against payment of damages__
(1)If an industry or enterprise is involved in any inherently dangerous activity, than for any damage arising out of the conduction of the activity, the defendants will have no access to any defence or exception and will be absolutely liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff.
(2) The enterprise will be held responsible for all possible damage on consequences resulting from the activity. This will make such industries to provide safety equipments to its workers to prevent any mishap. Therefore, this will safeguard to the intrest of the worker and will give them a refined, safe working atmosphere.
(3) The element of escape which is an essential in strict liability and it may be ignored here as this restricts the application of this doctrine of Absolute liability as after incident may arise where escape of the dangerous thing like poisonous fumes may not take place outside in industry premises but may damage the workers inside. In this case, the worker's right to compensation will not be ignored. Therefore, the extent of this principle is to be applied in a wider context ruling out the elements of escape.
(4) In case where strict liability applies, compensation paid is according to the nature and quantum of damage caused but in cases of Absolute liability, compensation on damage to be paid is exemplary in nature. The amount decided upon should be more than the damage caused as industrial hazardous accidents generally caused mass death and destructin of property and environment.

In the case of M.C.MEHETA V. UNION ON INDIA AIR1987SC1086  an important development took place in India when Bhagwati CJ. revolutionized the law of the strict liability. He did not follow the principal laid down I. The case of RYLANDS V. FLETCHER, on the ground that those principle are not in keeping with the present day jurisprudential thinking.

The facts were that there was escape of Plum Gas from one of the unit of SRIRAM FOODS AND FURTILIZERS INDUSTRIES, DELHI.  Due to this leakage one advocate and several others had died. An action was brought against the industry through a writ petition under Art.32 of the Indian Constitution by way of public intrest litigation (PIL). The judge in this case refused to follow the strict liability principle set by the English law, because this rule was evolved in the year 1868 and it can't be followed in a modern industrial society with the highly developed scientific knowledge and technology where hazardous or inherently dangerous industries are necessary to carry as part of the development programme. Therefore the court than directed the organization who had filed the petition to file suits against the industry in appropriate courts within a span of 2 moths to demand compensation on behalf of the aggrieved parties.

Again in the case of BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1990 S.C 273. This doctrine was upheld in famous Bhopal gas tragedy which took place between the intervening night of second and 3rd December,1984 leakage of methye-iso-cynide(MIC) poisonous gas from the union carbide company in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh led to a major disaster and over three thousands people lost their lives. There was heavy lost to property, flora and fauna. The effect were so grave that children in those area are born with deformites even today. A case was filed in the American New York District Court as the UNION CARBIDE COMPNY in BHOPAL was a branch of the U.S based UNION CARBIDE COMPANY. The case was dismissed there owing to no jurisdiction. The Bhopal gas disaster (processing of claims) Act,1985 and save the company for damage on behalf of the victims. The court applying the principle of Absolute liability held the company liable and order it to pay damages to the victim.

Conclusion:- In conclusion we can say that, the rule of Absolute liability is a modified version of strict liability. In case of strict liability the defendant can take the help of several defences. Wherever in the rule of Absolute liability put upon the defendant where the scope of any defence being taken is not allowed. They are held liable for payment of damages under all circumstances.

Again I the rule of strict liability the nature and quantum of damages that are payble to the plaintiff are compensatory in nature that is in accordance to the amount of loss suffered by the plaintiff, damages will be paid equivalent to the amount lost. But in Absolute liability the nature of damages that are payble to the plaintiff are exemplary.