ABSOLUTE LIABILITY UNDER TORT LAW

ABSTRACT

This study evaluates the concept of absolute liability of India. A legal theory known as the rule of absolute liability was created to handle the problems brought on by industrialisation and risky business practices. It establishes an unwavering obligation on industries for harm produced by their operations and removes the exclusions permitted under strict liability. Its development, use in Indian jurisprudence, legislative actions, and socioeconomic ramifications are all covered in this article. One important idea in the field of tort law, especially in the Indian legal system, is the notion of absolute liability. Absolute liability requires that industries involved in hazardous or intrinsically harmful operations carry full responsibility for any injury that happens, regardless of negligence or purpose, in contrast to strict liability, which grants the defendant certain defences.

Keywords

Absolute liability, Strict liability, Tort law, Respondent, Defendant, Landmark judgment, Legislative framework

INTRODUCTION

.Understanding the development of the “Absolute Liability” principle is the best way to analyse and study the origins and evolution of a legal idea. The aforementioned premise originated in tort law and has since evolved into environmental law and constitutional law. In essence, absolute liability is the idea that someone who commits a hazardous or dangerous act that harms the environment or the public is held fully accountable for their actions, regardless of whether they intended to commit a crime or knew that their actions would result in the commission of a crime. The idea was gradually formed from numerous precedents and other related tort law tenets.In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[1], also referred to as the Oleum gas leak case, the concept of absolute liability was developed in India. One of the Indian judiciary’s seminal rulings is this one. Even after gaining our independence, we have consistently complied with British laws and regulations. India has been adhering to the strict liability concept prior to the development of this one. However, the issue with the theory was that it contained so many exceptions that the guilty party would always take advantage of one of them to get the crime they had committed dismissed. There was a great deal of chaos in the city of Bhopal following the gas leak, as many people died and many others were afflicted with deadly illnesses that persisted for generations. As a result, the Court chose to create a new, absolute liability concept (strict liability – exceptions) in place of the strict liability principle. The Supreme Court established this ruling, which is far more expansive than the guidelines established by the House of Lords in the Ryland v. Fetcher [2]decision (a defendant is strictly liable for his guilt and cannot raise any defences).

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

Dangerous Thing: Only if a dangerous item has escaped from the owner’s property will liability be triggered. Additionally, the item has the potential to harm anyone or their property while escaping. A sizable pool of water, electricity, gas, explosives, fumes, rusty wires, etc. Have all been deemed dangerous in a number of strict liability cases
Escape: The defendant will be held fully liable for any harmful item that escapes their control and damages the plaintiff’s property or injures anyone. Regarding Read v. Lyons and Co..[3] The plaintiff in this case worked for the defendant’s manufacturing business. She was seriously hurt when a piece of manufactured material detonated while she was performing her duties. In this case, the court determined that the accident happened on the property while the plaintiff was performing her duties. It was decided that the strict liability principle did not apply in this case and that the defendant could not avoid his responsibility. The accused was found accountable.
Non-natural use of land: The term “non-natural use of land” refers to the collection of water for residential purposes exclusively; yet, it is referred to as such if it is collected in big quantities, such as in a reservoir. It was decided in the Ryland v.Fetcher case that gathering a lot of water is considered a non-natural use of land. The prime contrast between a natural and non-natural use of land is based on what a sensible person would do and the social and environmental circumstances. planting a tree on one’s property is considered a natural use of the land; nevertheless, planting harmful vegetation is considered a non-natural usage.
Mischief: In order to hold the defendant accountable under this principle, the plaintiff must first demonstrate that the defendant used the land in a way that was not natural and that he fled from a harmful object on his property, which caused additional harm. In the matter of Hydraulic Power Co. Vs. Charing Cross Electric Supply Co.[4] . The defendant was tasked with delivering water to several locations. The pipeline ruptured in several locations as a result of the defendant’s failure to maintain the minimum pressure that was also expected of them. The plaintiff suffered severe damages as a result. Even though the defendant in this instance was not at fault, they were nevertheless held accountable.

CORE PRINCIPLES OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

No-Fault Liability: In contrast to liability based on negligence, absolute liability exempts the plaintiff from having to establish negligence or fault. Liability can be shown by the mere fact that harm results from the defendant’s dangerous actions.
No Defences Allowed: Absolute liability does not allow any defences, in contrast to the strict liability concept, which allows exceptions for things like acts of God, the plaintiff’s own carelessness, or unanticipated third-party activities. The victims’ compensation is still the only urgency.
Enterprise Responsibility: Businesses and industries that engage in risky or inherently harmful activities have an resolute commitment to maintain safety. Their operations’ nature and the possible harm they could cause to the environment and the general population make them accountable.
Accountability and Instructions: The idea is to prevent enterprises from economising on safety precautions. It motivates companies to take the utmost precautions by enforcing an unyielding standard of liability.
Sufficient recompense: People who suffer injuries as a result of dangerous actions are entitled to complete and equitable recompense. The idea makes sure that the person making money from the action has the responsibility for the loss, not the defenceless victims.
Public Interest and Welfare: The judiciary’s emphasis on preserving environmental integrity and public health, particularly in a contemporary industrial society, is reflected in absolute liability. It strikes a balance between the necessity of economic expansion and the general obligation to safeguard the environment and human life.

SCOPE OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

The absolute liability rule is regarded as a legal exception in practically all situations. It developed as a continuation of strict responsibility, which historically permitted defences such as the plaintiff’s own guilt or acts of God. However, absolute culpability does not allow for these kinds of exceptions. The Public Liability Insurance Act of 1991 was enacted in response to the devastating Oleum Gas Leak case, with the ultimate aim of giving victims of accidents involving the handling of hazardous materials prompt compensation. The goal of this act was to establish a public liability insurance fund that would eventually be utilised to compensate the victims. According to this legislation, a harmful chemical is any material that has the potential to harm people, other living things, plants, microorganisms, property, or the environment due to its chemical makeup or other characteristics.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK SUPPORTING ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

India’s commitment to ensuring accountability and protection in the face of industrial and environmental hazards is reflected in the legislative framework supporting the concept of absolute liability. Although judicial pronouncements are the primary source of absolute liability, its application is supported by a number of statutes and regulations:

The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Enacted in response to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, this act gives the central government broad authority to protect and improve the environment. It makes it possible to impose severe sanctions on industries that violate safety standards and requires precautions to prevent damage to the environment.
The Public Liability Insurance Act of 1991: This law requires businesses that handle dangerous materials to have insurance coverage, guaranteeing prompt reimbursement for those hurt in workplace mishaps. By making businesses pay for any damages brought on by their operations, the act demonstrates the ideas of total liability.
The Factories statute, 1948: This statute was amended to emphasise rigorous adherence to safety regulations in factories dealing with dangerous substances, even though its primary concern was worker safety. Employers are subject to a duty of care, which is consistent with the idea of absolute culpability.
The 2016 Regulations for the Management, Handling, and Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes: To protect the environment and public health, these regulations govern the handling and disposal of hazardous waste. They put the burden of ensuring the safe handling and disposal of hazardous materials on industries.
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: Both acts impose accountability on enterprises for causing water or air pollution. They support the idea of complete accountability by giving pollution control boards the authority to enforce rules and administer approvals.
The 2010 Act of the National Green Tribunal (NGT): The NGT was created to deal with cases pertaining to environmental protection and the upholding of environmental law rights. It frequently uses the absolute liability principle when compensating victims of environmental damage brought on by industrial operations.

CASE LAWS RELATING TO ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

The idea of absolute liability was established in India by the 1987 case of M.C. MEHTA V. UNION OF INDIA1987. The Supreme Court ruled in the wake of the Oleum gas leak from a Delhi firm operated by Shriram Foods and Fertilisers that businesses involved in risky operations have an unassailable obligation to protect the public. It decided that regardless of the precautions adopted, these industries must pay for any damages incurred and cannot use any defence to avoid accountability.
Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case (1989)[5]: The accident at the Union Carbide factory in Bhopal brought attention to the need for strict liability rules, even though it was not at the time specifically classified as an absolute liability case. The court emphasised the necessity for industries handling dangerous substances to maintain public safety and awarded interim compensation. The lessons learnt from this catastrophe were eventually enshrined in M.C. Mehta.
Union of India v. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (1996)[6]: The Supreme Court used the idea of absolute liability in this decision to hold polluting industries accountable. According to the court, the polluter is responsible for paying for environmental harm and compensating impacted parties. It reaffirmed that no justification or defence could release industries from accountability.
Union of India v. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum (1996)[7]: The pollution from Tamil Nadu’s tanneries was the subject of this litigation. The “polluter pays” theory, which is closely related to absolute liability, was used by the Supreme Court to make the industries responsible for paying victims’ compensation and repairing the environment.
Sterlite Industries Case (2013)[8]: Due to serious environmental contamination, Sterlite Industries was ordered to close by the Tamil Nadu contamination Control Board. The concept of absolute liability was maintained by the National Green Tribunal and subsequent courts, stressing that businesses must be held responsible for environmental damage without exception.

IS STRICT LIABILITY AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY THE SAME THING?

No, strict liability and absolute liability are two different concepts. In disparity to absolute liability, where the offender is held fully accountable for his actions, strict liability allows the defendant to evade responsibility despite causing harm and damage. This indicates that even if both regulations are established for punishing those who have caused harm and for handling dangerous materials carelessly, they would be different when it comes to allowing respite. While the offender may raise certain defences in cases of strict liability, the defendant in cases of absolute liability is not granted any defences. The courts even ruled that there is no need for widespread environmental damage or contamination and that absolute culpability can be established in the event of a single death.

“Moreover, the principle which was established in Ryland vs. Fletcher’s case cannot be applied in the modern world because the rule was laid down in the old world as opposed to the one laid down in the modern world which is period of industrial revolution. This principle is two hundred years old and cannot be adopted without the modifications being made to it,” the Supreme Court said in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, analysing the necessity of changing the 19^th century rule of strict liability. Limiting the rule’s application and bringing it into line with contemporary theory is the primary goal.

CONCLUSION

In a society that is becoming more industrialised, the judiciary’s steadfast dedication to justice, accountability, and the preservation of the general welfare is demonstrated by the concept of absolute liability. In contrast to conventional theories of culpability, it acknowledges the particular risks associated with risky activities and makes sure that the onus of paying damages to victims rests firmly on those who benefit from them. Absolute culpability changes the law to a more just and socially conscious system by eliminating defences and emphasising the rights of the victim. It acts as a strong deterrent, forcing businesses to put safety first, take strict safety measures, and reduce risks in order to protect people and the environment. The fundamental tenet of this ideology is that industrial advancement and economic growth cannot be achieved at the expense of environmental damage or human life. The idea of absolute liability, which strikes a balance between economic goals and the core ideas of justice, equity, and sustainable development, continues to be a pillar of contemporary jurisprudence as industrialisation grows.

REFERENCES

Concept of absolute liability, http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/2155/Strict-and-Absolute Liability.html#:~:text=%2D%20Blackburn%2C%20J.,Absolute%20Liability,compensation%20to%20the%20aggrieved%20parties ( visited on 23^rd Dec, 2024)
Concept of absolute liability https://blog.ipleaders.in/concept-absolute-liability/ (visited on 23^rd Dec,2024)
Absolute liabilityhttps://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/2D83321D-590A-4646-83F6-9D8E84F5AA3C.pdf ( visited on 25^th Dec, 2024)
Concept of absolute liability https://lawbhoomi.com/concept-of-absolute-liability/ ( Visited on 25^th Dec,2024)

[1] MC Mehta v. Union of India 1987 SCR (1) 819; AIR 1987 965

[2] Ryland V. Fetcher LR 3 HL 330

[3] Read V. Lyons A.C. 156

[4] Hydraulic Power C.o. V. Charing cross electricity co. (1914) 3KB

[5] Bhopal Gas Tragedy case 1990 AIR 273 1989 SCC (2) 540 1989 SCALE (1)932

[6] Union of India v. Indian Council for Enviro- Legal Action 1996 AIR 1446, 1996 SCC (3) 212

[7] Union of India V. Vellore Citizens Welfare Program (1996) Supp. (5) S.C.R. 241

[8] Sterlite Industries Case 2013 AIR SCW 3231, 2013 (4) SCC 575

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 personal.