The doctrine of strict liability was propounded for the first time by Blackburn.

The doctrine of strict liability was propounded for the first time by Blackburn. J in the case of Rylands vs. Fletcher”. Discuss the principle of strict liability and comment on as to why this principle was later replaced by the concept of “Absolute liability” in India (Oleum gas leak case).

INTRODUCTION

Before discussing about the principle of strict liability, it is important to understand the concept of tort. The law gives various rights to the public and when one of these rights is invalidated, the culprit is held liable in tort.[1] So, it falls under a duty, to respect everybody’s rights. Therefore the law of tort serves to compensate the victims, whose rights have been infringed. The costs of damage must be bared by the person causing the damage, and then it takes initiative to reduce further risky behaviour in the future.

In the strict liability theory, the defendant pays for the damage, regardless of the fact that if he/she was actually negligent or not Sometimes the defendant is held liable if the person acted intentionally, however if the person can prove that he acted with caution and responsibility, he might be able to get rid of the liability. But it is not clear that what is the extent to which liability matters for a defendant to be held responsible for the case? As a result this principle was later replaced by absolute liability

Absolute liability is the defendant’ straight responsibilities for any damages are caused by a hazardous product. In this situation only the existence of the matter is important and this will be enough for the defendant to be liable. In the context of strict liability, the defendant may be excused from this if it can be proven that the person was careful enough and unintentional in doing the task. Therefore absolute liability is more reflective of the situation and more supportive to the victims.

Rylands vs. Fletcher

According to Rylands vs. Fletcher, “where a person who, for his own purposes, brings and keeps on land in his occupation anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, he must keep it in at his peril, and if he fails to do so he is liable for all damage naturally accruing from the escape.” In this case, Ryland’s land was damaged because of Fletcher’s ignorance, whereas Fletcher was not directly responsible as he was unaware of the mineshafts that caused the damage.

Pet animals

In tort, strict liability applies for damages caused by pet animals. As animals do not have the conscience to know what is right or what is wrong, so the keepers of these pet should be conscious of their animals and restrict them in doing any sort of mischief. One general guideline is to restrict the animals from letting them trespass the property of others.

Defective products

Liabilities regarding defective products are the most common cases of strict liability. These include situations when the victim claims injuries or damages based on poorly manufactured products. The defendant needs not to prove that that he was negligent in designing the product, he will be liable as it was malfunctioned or not properly designed.

Anti-doping policy

The doctrine of strict liability applies to situation where blood/urine samples of athletes provide with bad results. It means that the athletes are responsible for all the substances found in their body and when any restricted material is found, it is called the violation of anti-doping policy, regardless of the fact that, whether the athlete was intentional in having that material found in his/her body. However a sanction can be taken into account if the athlete can prove that it was unintentional or he/she was not aware of this happening.

Exceptions to strict liability

These include the following: the default of the claimant, act of God, statutory authority, consent of the claimant and act of third party. If any damage is caused by the defendant’s fault then he or she will be solely responsible for this and there is no remedy for it. Blackburn J recognised the fact that if something occurs without any human intervention, then it cannot be controlled and neither can it be the fault of any person related to it.

Oleum gas leak case

This major leakage of gas caused the death of several people and which was a result of both human and technical faults. The victims were to be given compensation for the losses occurred during this mishap and the whole establishment had been closed. Later the judges gave permission to restart the industry but with certain terms and conditions regarding manufacturing of hazardous products such as chlorine and caustic soda and their released by-products, that they will be subject to judgement by the court.

Merits of absolute liability

It has a wider scope than strict liability especially when it applies to such cases as car accident where the car driver is liable for any accident if the speed limit is above 70km per hour for example. Here the car driver is held responsible for the accident because he knows that it is not allowed to raise your speed limit above that level, yet he did where there was a high chance of accident occurring. So, in this example the driver’s intention does not matter because his acceptance of the speed limit yet violating it, proves that he was aware of the consequence that was going to happen and yet done it willingly. So the accident itself is enough to prove that he is guilty for it, without being liable for negligence.

Concluding remarks

At first the strict liability was only practiced which can be seen at the example of Ryland’s vs. Fletcher case. To keep pace with the fast changing society law had to introduce this principle for which the defendant can be excused if proven responsible and not negligent. However in the case of Oleum gas leak, we can see that the concept of absolute liability applies because it takes into account the mere existence of the situation where it does not matter if the defendant was responsible or not. So the doctrine of strict liability is later replaced by absolute liability in India.

Conclusion

Absolute and strict liability is two ends of the same point regarding no fault liability. For example strict liability takes into account the defendant’s intention of doing the fault and willingness. On the other hand, absolute liability does not consider the culprit’s defence and merely makes decisions based on the existence of the situation.

Reference

CIMA business law (1990) BPP publishing, pg. 253

MC Mehta vs. Union of India, Facts of the case, retrieved from http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l265-M.C.-Mehta-v.-Union-of-India.html , accessed on 14th March, 2013

Merits and Demerits, Strict and absolute liability: A critique, retrieved from http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Strict-and-Absolute-Liability-A-critique-1451.asp#.UUHGnBw3ulc , accessed on 14th march 2013

Strict liability, Economic analysis of alternative standards of liability in accident law, retrieved from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/bridge/LawEconomics/neg-liab.htm , accessed on 12th March, 2013 5

Strict liability, Rylands Vs. Fletcher, retrieved from http://www.safetyphoto.co.uk/subsite/case%20q%20r%20s%20t/Rylands_v_Fletcher.htm , accessed on 12th March, 2013

Strict liability in anti-doping, World anti-doping agency, retrieved from http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/qa_strict_liability.pdf , accessed on 13th March, 2013

Strict liability, The legal dictionary, retrieved from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Strict+Liability accessed on 12th March, 2013

What is strict liability, retrieved from http://buteralaw.com/newsletters.asp?c=47&id=366

, accessed on 12th March , 2013

Tort law, The legal dictionary, retrieved from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tort+Law , accessed on 12th March, 2013

Strict liability, Wikipedia, retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability accessed on 12th March, 2013

[1] See CIMA business law (1990) BPP publishing, pg. 253

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.