THE CONCEPT OF STRICT LIABILITY AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

This article is written by Manikala Sravika Pavan of 4^th Semester of Alliance School of Law, Alliance University, Bangalore, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

ABSTRACT

A person is frequently held responsible for actions that he could not have taken or, in addition, even if he took all reasonable precautions to limit the harm his conduct may do, he was nonetheless held guilty. Because of strict liability regulations, the individual is liable in this situation even if there was no carelessness. The Act recognizes this provision based on the principles of “no-fault liability.” It is not necessary to demonstrate blame, carelessness, or intent under strict responsibility. Criminal law, corporate law, and tort law all make extensive use of strict responsibility. See product responsibility for a discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of strict liability as it relates to the most significant strict liability regime. A standard of legal culpability prevalent in many legal countries’ criminal and tort laws is called absolute liability.

This paper explores the legal consequences and tenets of strict responsibility and absolute liability, two unique legal theories with broad effects in several legal contexts. Absolute liability goes beyond strict liability by making parties legally liable for acts or substances that are inherently harmful. Strict liability places legal responsibility for specific actions on people or entities, regardless of guilt or purpose.

The first part of the analysis gives a historical review of strict liability, showing how it developed within legal jurisprudence. It examines the fundamentals of strict responsibility, focusing on its application to product liability, environmental damage, and specific criminal acts. This study examines the theoretical foundations of strict liability, evaluating its benefits in terms of enhancing public safety, consumer protection, and deterrence, while also taking into account critiques pertaining to equity and the possibility of going too far.

To sum up, this thorough examination adds to a more sophisticated comprehension of strict responsibility and absolute culpability by illuminating their historical origins, current uses, and ongoing legal discourse. The purpose of the article is to provide legal academics, practitioners, and policymakers with an understanding of the complex factors that surround various liability theories, laying the groundwork for future discussions and improvements in the field of legal responsibility.

Keywords

Consumer protection, No-fault liability, Carelessness, Responsibility, Precautions.

INTRODUCTION

As a legal doctrine, strict responsibility holds people or organizations accountable for their deeds, regardless of whether they were careless or intended repercussions. This idea has applications in a variety of fields, including environmental law, product liability, and some types of criminal activity. By putting the onus of accountability on individuals involved in potentially hazardous actions, strict liability seeks to maintain accountability and safeguard the interests of consumers, the general public, and the environment.

Exceeding the concept of strict responsibility, absolute liability establishes a more rigorous benchmark. It occurs when substances or actions that are inherently harmful are involved, and even when all reasonable measures are taken, the responsible person is nevertheless held severely accountable due to the potential for serious injury. Absolute liability emphasizes how crucial it is to stop harm from happening and puts the burden of responsibility for any resulting damages on individuals who take on high-risk activities.

The development and implementation of these liability theories are a reflection of wider social concerns about consumer protection, environmental preservation, and public safety. The purpose of this essay is to examine the theoretical foundations, historical evolution, and current uses of strict and absolute liability.

The notion of strict liability was originally embraced in the late 1800s. It originated from the incompetence concept, which frequently refers to careless behaviour. It involves having a duty of care to one’s neighbours, and when that obligation is broken, the neighbour’s suffer consequences. In the event that the defendant is proven to have been negligent, the complainant will be entitled to reimbursement for any losses incurred. As opposed to this, in an absolute responsibility scenario, the defendant is held accountable whether or not he was careless.

When an entity participates in a risky or intrinsically dangerous procedure that results in harm to an individual due to an incident that transpires during the risky or intrinsically dangerous activity as a result, the business has whole responsibility for compensating any and all victims of the crash, with no exclusions. This is known as absolute liability.

STRICT LIABILITY

Strict liability developed as a result of the Ryland v. Fletcher case[1]. The concept of strict responsibility was established in 1868 and stipulates that a person who stores dangerous materials on his property shall be held liable should such materials escape and cause any harm. Regarding the case’s circumstances, F constructed a reservoir on his property in order to supply electricity for the mill that he owned. R’s coal mines were flooded by reservoir water as a result of an accident. R then brought legal action against F. The Court decided that the defendant constructed the reservoir at his own risk and that, should an accident occur, he would be held accountable for both the disaster and the material’s escape[2].

According to the legal theory of strict responsibility, people and/or organizations are accountable for their deeds regardless of their intention or degree of care. Strict liability imposes legal obligation based only on the occurrence of a specific incident or injury, as opposed to customary liability principles that call for the demonstration of fault or negligence to establish blame. This concept is used in a number of legal situations, such as criminal law, tort law, and certain regulatory frameworks.

Strict responsibility is a legal level for liability that can apply in both criminal and civil situations. A strict liability rule holds an individual accountable for all harm and loss brought about by their actions or inactions, regardless of their level of guilt (in criminal law words, this usually entails the existence of mens rea). It is not necessary to demonstrate blame, carelessness, or purpose under strict responsibility. Strict responsibility is common in criminal law, companies’ law, and tort law—particularly in relation to product liability.

Justice Blackburn[3] defined Strict Liability as “The rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril; and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape”.

Essentials of Strict Liability

i. Dangerous Material

Only in the unlikely event that a “dangerous” material escapes from the defendant’s premises would he be held strictly accountable. Any material that, if it escapes, will create trouble or injury qualifies as a dangerous substance for the purposes of strict liability. Dangerous objects include stuff like electricity, explosives, and poisonous gases.

ii. Escape

The item must escape from the premises and remain out of the defendant’s access after it does so in order for the defendant to be held severely accountable. For example, the defendant’s land contains certain toxic plants. The plant’s leaves infiltrate the plaintiff’s land, where they are consumed by his cattle, leading to their demise. The loss will be attributable to the defendant. However, the defendant would not be held accountable if the plaintiff’s cattle entered the defendant’s property, consumed the toxic leaves, and perished.

In the case of Reads v. Lyons & Co[4], It was decided that the defendant could not be held accountable if there was no escape.

iii. Non-Natural use

For there to be a strict liability, the land must be used for a purpose other than its natural use. The water gathered in the reservoir was seen as a non-natural use of the property in the Rylands v. Fletcher[5]. Water storage for home usage is seen as a natural application. However, the Court determined that holding water in order to power a mill was not natural. It is important to remember that there must be a specific application of the phrase “non-natural” that puts other people in greater danger.

Exceptions of Strict Liability

Although the legal notion of strict liability normally places blame on persons or corporations without requiring them to prove guilt or purpose, there are several situations when exceptions and defences may be applicable. The jurisdiction and the particular circumstances of the case determine whether exceptions and defences apply.

i. Act of God

 This was acknowledged in Nichols v. Marshland[6] and used by Blackburn J. in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher. In this instance, the defendant had artificial decorative lakes in his possession for a long time that were created by damming a natural stream. The manmade embankments were destroyed by an exceptional downpour that was “greater and more violent than any within the memory of the witnesses,” and the rushing water washed away four bridges, the damage for which the claimant filed a lawsuit. The defendant was declared not guilty by the jury, and the court decided that she should not be held accountable for an unusual natural event that she could not have reasonably foreseen or anticipated.

ii. Plaintiff’s own fault

The claimant has no recourse if the injury was entirely the result of his own actions or inaction. In the case of Ryland v. Fletcher[7], this was seen as a defence. A person cannot object if he knew that his neighbour’s operations on nearby property may flood his mine, and he courted the hazard by taking a step that increased the likelihood of flooding.

Similarly, in Pointing v. Noakes[8], the horse of the claimant passed over the horse of the defendant’s boundary, nibbled on some toxic trees there, and as a result, died. It was decided that the claimant would not be entitled to any compensation because the horse’s own incursion caused the harm and there was no vegetation escape.

iii. Act of Third Party

The defendant will not be accountable under this rule if the injury was caused by the actions of a stranger, who is neither the defendant’s servant nor does the defendant have any influence over him. Therefore, in Box v. Jubb[9], the defendant was found not responsible for the overflow from the defendant’s reservoir since it was caused by outsiders obstructing a drain. In a case similar to this, outsiders opened the tap and clogged the waste pipes of a washbasin that belonged to the defendants but was otherwise within their control in Richards v. Lothian[10]. The plaintiff’s products were harmed by the gushing water. The accused were declared not accountable.

iv. Consent of the Claimant

In cases when the defendant has not been negligent and the claimant has given their verbal or tacit agreement for the source of hazard to exist, the defendant is released from liability. The exemption only serves to highlight volenti non-fit injuria, the common defence. The tenant of a lower floor sustains damage as a result of water escaping from an upper floor, which is the main application of the implied consent principle. However, it should be noted that the cases that have addressed this defence have generally involved perfectly normal domestic fittings that would be a natural use of land in today’s world[11].

v. Statutory Authority

Statutes may exclude the Rylands v. Fletcher rule. Whether this is true or not is up for debate. In Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Co[12]., for example, a waterworks company’s main burst without the company’s negligence, flooding the claimant’s premises; the company was found not liable. The company had received permission from Parliament to lay the main.

On the other hand, in Charging Cross Electricity Co v Hydraulic Power Co[13] when the facts were identical, the defendants were determined to be liable and had no exception to the interpretation of their statute. Hydroelectric Power was granted permissive authorization by legislation to deliver water for industrial uses; that is, they were not required to maintain their mains charged with water at high pressure or at all. This is how the situations differed from one another.

By statute, the Chelsea Waterworks Co. was required to maintain a constant supply of water and was authorized to lay mains. Because it was inevitable that occasional bursts would cause damage, the statute implicitly released the company from liability in cases where there was no negligence.

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

Variations in different legal jurisdictions’ criminal and tort laws. In certain countries, a person must have had a guilty mind or intentional purpose in addition to having performed a criminal act in order to be found guilty of an ordinary crime (men’s rea). It is possible for someone to be found guilty of a crime in cases of strict responsibility (criminal) or absolute culpability even if they had no criminal intent. The availability of the defence of a mistake of fact distinguishes strict responsibility from absolute liability; in an absolute liability crime, a mistake of fact is not a defence.

Absolute Liability: This can also occur from actions that are intrinsically risky or from faulty goods that, notwithstanding precautions taken, are likely to injure someone else. It is not necessary to establish negligence[14].

In India, absolute liability is a standard of tort liability that states that if a business engages in an activity that is hazardous or inherently dangerous and an accident occurs during the operation of that activity that results in the escape of toxic gas, for example, the business is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all parties affected by the accident. This liability is not subject to any of the exceptions that apply to the tortious principle of strict liability under the Rylands v. Fletcher rule.

Absolute responsibility is a legal notion that states that, regardless of blame or purpose, a person or entity is held strictly accountable for certain actions or occurrences. This implies that a person or organization may still be held legally liable for the results of their conduct even if they exercised due diligence and took all reasonable safeguards[15]. When there is a substantial risk of injury from behaviours or drugs that are inherently harmful, the idea of absolute responsibility is frequently used. Transporting hazardous items, storing explosives, and engaging in extremely dangerous activities are a few examples. Strict liability is imposed by law in these situations to make sure that those involved in these activities take full responsibility for any harm that may arise.

Absolute responsibility is justified by the need to put public safety first and place the onus of possible harm on individuals who participate in risky activities. In contrast, in cases where negligence is the basis for culpability, the emphasis is on whether the person engaged in reasonable behaviour and took the necessary safety precautions.

A major change: Mehta v. Union of India[16]

A significant oleum gas spill happened in Delhi on December 4 and 6, 1985, at one of the plants of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries, which was connected to Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. As a result, a supporter in the Tis Hazari Court had died, and many others were impacted in the same way. The court received a writ appeal to be heard by procedure for open intrigue suit (PIL). It was argued that if every tragedy resulting from large production lines falls under the strict liability exceptions, they will be absolved of responsibility for the harm they produced in the course of their actions.

The Court observed that this was the second large-scale fatal gas leak in India in less than a year, since the previous year over 3,000 people had died as a result of the gas leak from the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, and thousands more had suffered various illnesses. In the unlikely event that the strict risk control established in Rylands v. Fletcher was linked to such circumstances, those who had established “hazardous and dangerous” businesses in and around densely populated areas could then claim certain exceptions to avoid being held accountable for the damage they caused. Subsequently, the Supreme Court created another document, “Absolute Liability,” which was written by PN Bhagwati, the Chief Justice of India at the time.

Guidelines for determining absolute liability

1. Applying to Both Natural and Non-Natural Uses of Land:

The Ryland v. Fletcher rule is limited to uses that are not natural, while the new rule of absolute responsibility covers both types of uses. Even if someone takes the necessary precautions, they might still be held accountable if they utilize a hazardous material—which could be a natural use of the land—and that chemical escapes.

2. Hazardous or intrinsically dangerous activities:

 Under the doctrine of absolute liability, an individual who engages in an activity that is inherently dangerous or hazardous will be held entirely responsible if an accident occurs while the individual is performing the activity and causes harm to another person.

3. Escape not necessary:

This indicates that the law of total culpability will apply to both those wounded within and outside of the premises when a dangerous object escapes from one’s own property.

4. No exception:

 Strict Liability has several exceptions, and if a case falls under one of those exceptions, the defendant is exempt from liability. When a defendant has absolute liability, he cannot raise any defence based on any of the exceptions, and he is required to pay compensation.

5. Damages:

The amount of damages is determined by the institute’s size and financial capacity. According to the Supreme Court, an enterprise bears the responsibility of ensuring that any hazardous or inherently dangerous activities it engages in are conducted with the highest standards of safety and security. If any harm arises from negligent activity, the enterprise or institution will be held entirely liable for compensating for any damages caused, and they will not be given the opportunity to defend themselves by claiming that they took all reasonable precautions and that the harm was not caused by their negligence.

CONCLUSION

Legal principles that impose obligation on people or corporations regardless of fault are known as strict liability and absolute liability. These theories have developed in response to circumstances in which standard fault-based responsibility would not be sufficient to guarantee damages for injuries sustained. Notwithstanding their degree of care or carelessness, people or organizations may be held strictly liable for certain actions or circumstances. This idea is frequently used in situations when the actions involved are inherently risky. Strict responsibility is justified by the need to make sure people involved in these activities pay for any possible injury, which will motivate them to take more safety procedures.

In contrast to strict responsibility, absolute liability holds parties strictly accountable for damages even in cases when they have taken all reasonable safeguards. This approach is typically used when the potential harm is so great that it is seen necessary to assign blame even in the event that all safety measures are implemented. Relatively seldom, absolute responsibility is only applied in circumstances where there is a significant chance of disastrous outcomes.

Striking a balance between the interests of the actor inflicting harm and the possible victims is the goal of both strict and absolute responsibility. These philosophies seek to discourage carelessness and promote responsible conduct by laying the onus of ensuring safety on people participating in certain activities. They also concede, nevertheless, that there are circumstances in which total damage prevention may be difficult. In conclusion, the legal landscape depends on the ideas of strict responsibility and absolute liability because they offer a way to handle circumstances in which standard fault-based liability would not be sufficient. These ideologies show a society’s dedication to holding people accountable for actions that seriously endanger other people while simultaneously acknowledging the difficulties in establishing guilt and averting harm

REFERENCES

1. Rebecca Furtado “Concept of Strict Liability and Absolute Liability”.
2. “Excerpts from the House of Lords Decision in Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Counties Leather plc” http:// www.pierrelegrand.com/cambridge_water_excerpts.pdf
3.  Absolute Liability: The Rule of Strict Liability in Indian Perspective by Parmar & Aayush Goyal. Available at https://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/2D83321D-590A-4646-83F6-9D8E84F5AA3C.pdf.
4. Strict & Absolute liability: With Special Reference to India by Manoj Kumar. Available at https://wwjmrd.com/upload/strict–absolute-liability-with-special-reference-to-india_1516274831.pdf.
5. Ryland v. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330
6. Reads v. Lyons & Co [1947] AC 156 House of Lords
7. Nichols v. Marshland 1876) 2 Ex.D. 1.
8. Ryland v. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330
9. Pointing v. Noakes 1894] 2 Q.B. 281.
10. Box v. Jubb (1879) 4 Ex D 76
11. Mehta v. Union of India 1987 AIR 1086

---

[1] Ryland v. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330

[2] Rebecca Furtado “Concept of Strict Liability and Absolute Liability”. Accessed on 13-01-2024.

[3] “Excerpts from the House of Lords Decision in Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Counties Leather plc” http:// www.pierrelegrand.com/cambridge_water_excerpts.pdf. Accessed on 13-01-2024.

[4] Reads v. Lyons & Co [1947] AC 156 House of Lords

[5] Ryland v. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330

[6] Nichols v. Marshland 1876) 2 Ex.D. 1.

[7] Ryland v. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330

[8] Pointing v. Noakes 1894] 2 Q.B. 281.

[9] Box v. Jubb (1879) 4 Ex D 76

[10] Richards v. Lothian [1913] AC 263

[11] Western engraving co v Film laboratories ltd [1936] 1 All E.R. 106.

[12] Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Co (1894) 70 LT 547

[13] Charging Cross Electricity Co v Hydraulic Power Co [1914] 3 K.B. 772

[14] Absolute Liability: The Rule of Strict Liability in Indian Perspective by Parmar & Aayush Goyal. Available at https://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/2D83321D-590A-4646-83F6-9D8E84F5AA3C.pdf. Accessed on 16-01-2024.

[15] Strict & Absolute liability: With Special Reference to India by Manoj Kumar. Available at https://wwjmrd.com/upload/strict–absolute-liability-with-special-reference-to-india_1516274831.pdf. Accessed on 16-01-2024.

[16] Mehta v. Union of India 1987 AIR 1086

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.