Unit-IV; Professional Sales Representative (PSR).pptx
Tort strict absolute liability
1. Dr. Khakare Vikas
LAW OF TORTS
Strict and Absolute Liability
Dr. Khakare Vikas S.
B.Com, LLM, SET, Ph.D.(Law)
Asso. Prof.
Narayanrao Chavan Law College, Nanded (MS)
3. Dr. Khakare Vikas
Who is not liable for negligence?
• It is general principle that a person who is negligent
shall be answerable for his negligence. And a
person who acts like a prudent man is never
answerable for act done by him.
• In Ryland v. Fletcher case for first time (1868) an
exception to this is introduced. This is known as rule
of strict liability. This liability may be fixed without
negligency.
4. Dr. Khakare Vikas
Ryland v. Fletcher
• In this case, defendant was owner of a mill. He got a reservoir built on his
land. In fact the reservoir was built by the engineers who were
independent contractors. When reservoir building process was going on,
certain shafts were found old disused under the site of reservoir.
Contractors got those shafts filled and constructed the reservoir. When the
reservoir was filled with water then the water communicated to the mines
of the plaintiff who was a neighbour of the defendant. While constructing,
reservoir filled with marl and sand. On account of the reservoir and its
leakage of water, plaintiff suffered. He brought an action against the
defendant. Defendant took defence he was not negligent because the
reservoir was built by an independent contractor.
5. Dr. Khakare Vikas
-
• In the judgment J. Blackburn said, ‘we think that the true
rule of law is that the person, who for his own purposes
brings in his land and collects and keeps there anything
likely to do mischief it escapes, must keep it at his peril;
and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all
the damage which is in the natural consequence if it
escape.
6. Dr. Khakare Vikas
.• In this case, following principles were laid down...
1. If a person brings dangerous substance upon his land which
commits mischief and injures the neighbour, then the person
who brings dangerous substance is answerable even if he
was not negligent.
2. In case of strict liability a person shall be held responsible
even if he was not negligent.
3. A person may use his land in natural way. But if he constructs
something upon that land which commits mischief the person
who does something upon his land shall be responsible.
7. Dr. Khakare Vikas
For application of this rule following
conditions are required
1. Some dangerous thing must have been brought by a
person on his land.
2. The thing thus brought or kept by a person on his land
must escape.
3. It must be non natural use.
8. Dr. Khakare Vikas
1. Dangerous thing
• Thing which has been escaped must be dangerous. A
thing may be dangerous by itself or it may not be so
dangerous but due to its nature, contents, quantity, use
may be dangerous. Ex. Water, gas, poles, electricity,
trees, sewage, explosives, noxious fumes etc.
9. Dr. Khakare Vikas
2. Escape
• Thing which is brought on the land must escape. Which
means, escape to the area outside the occupation and
control of the defendant.
• Some examples of escape are...
1. Water flow (Ryland v. Fletcher)
2. Protruding branches of trees (Crowhurst v. Amersham
Burial Board)
3. Escape of dangerous animals.
4. Escape of gas, fumes
10. Dr. Khakare Vikas
3. Non natural use
• It is difficult to decide what is natural use and what is non
natural use of land. From following examples it will be clear.
• Non natural use –
i. To collect a large heap of colliery soil upon unstable land.
ii. To accumulate gas in large quantity in pipe.
iii. Over use of fire.
iv. Huge quantity of water, fumes
v. Planting poisonous plants.
vi. Loaded gun
11. Dr. Khakare Vikas
Exceptions to this rule
• The are some exceptions to the rule in Ryland v. Fletcher, and
defendant cannot made liable.
1. Damage due to natural use of land.
2. Things escaped not dangerous.
3. Consent of the plaintiff.
4. Nigligent plaintiff.
5. Act of stranger or third party.
6. Public use or common benefit
7. Act of God.
8. Statutory authority.
12. Dr. Khakare Vikas
• Law of torts in India is based on English law of torts.
• In India rule in Ryland v. Fletcher is followed along with its
exceptions.
13. Dr. Khakare Vikas
Rule in
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
The rule of ‘strict liability’ though is ‘strict’; there are some
exceptions to it whereby defendant could avoid his liability.
But rule of ‘absolute liability’ which is evolved in M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India leaves no defence to defendant,
making him absolutely liable. In this regard two cases i.e.
Bhopal Gas Disaster Case and M.C. Mehta v. Union of
India are important.
RULE OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
14. Dr. Khakare Vikas
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
• At 4th and 6th December 1985, there was leakage of oleum
gas from one units of Shriram Foods and Fertilisers Industries
in Delhi, belonging to Delhi Cloth Mill Ltd. In this leakage one
advocate practising in Tis Hazari court had died and several
other were affected. A writ petition under Art. 32 of the
Constitution was filed by way of PIL. Supreme Court held that,
old rule of strict liability was not binding and it could evolve a
rule suitable to which is prevailing the Indian conditions of
social and economic conditions. i.e. the rule of ‘absolute
liability’ as part of Indian law in preference to the rule of strict
liability.
15. Dr. Khakare Vikas
.• In the judgment, Bhagwati CJ has observed that,
• The rule of strict liability was in 19th century where science
and technology had not taken place cannot afford any
guidance in evolving any standard of liability consistent
with the constitutional norm an the needs of the present
day economy and social structure.
• Law has to grow in order to satisfy the needs of fast
changing society and keep abrest with the economic
developments, taking place in this country. As new
situations arise the law has to be evolved in order to meet
the challenge of such new situations.
16. Dr. Khakare Vikas
• About the principle of absolute liability he mentioned,
• That an enterprise, which is engaged in hazardous or inherently
dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and
safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the
surrounding areas owes an absolute and non delegatable duty to
community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity which it has undertaken.
• The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that
the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged
must be conducted with the highest standards of safety.
• If any harm results on account of such activity the enterprise must be
absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no
answer to enterprise to say that it has taken all reasonable care and
that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part.
17. Dr. Khakare Vikas
Difference between ‘strict’ and absolute liability
Strict liability Absolute liability
01 Liability arises from non natural
use of land.
01 Liability arises due to hazardous
activity by an enterprise.
02 Strict liability is subject to some
defences.
02 There is no defences for absolute
liability
03 Generally substantial damages
are awarded
03 Along with substantial,
exemplary damages are awarded
depending upon the nature of
activity and the enterprise.
18. Dr. Khakare Vikas
BHOPAL GAS DISASTER CASE
(Union Carbide Corp v. Union of India)
• On the midnight of 2, 3 December 1984, mass disaster was caused
by the leakage of Methyl Isocyanate i.e. MICA gas and other toxic
gases from a plant set up by the Union Carbide India Ltd. For the
manufacture of pesticides in Bhopal. UCIL was a subsidiary company
of a multinational company registered in USA.
• It resulted in death of around 3000 person and around 600000
persons were permanently affected. The Government of India has
issued an ordinance The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (processing of
claims ) Act 1985. Supreme Court has applied principle of absolute
liability in this case. Suit was settled for 750 crore rupees.
