Analysis of Strict , Absolute and Vicarious Liability

Article by - Cheyanne Pereira (This article was written by her during tenure of her Internship as Legal Soch Foundation)

ABSTRACT:

The aim of this paper is to highlight the definitions of strict, absolute and vicarious liability under the law of torts and to discuss the origin and landmark cases of these principles.

In essence, torts are civil wrongs that result in civil damages. These are rights that people often have in opposition to everyone and everything. Certain tort liability principles are recognised by the law in order to implement these rights. We must depend on past judgments and jurisprudence to comprehend these ideas since the law of torts is not codified.

In general, a person has no responsibility for the wrongdoings of others and is only accountable for his own incorrect actions. The types of liabilities that this article will be covering is strict,absolute and vicarious liability.

What exactly is Strict Liability?

There is indeed a situation in which a person may be accountable for some damage even if he is not careless in causing it and has no intention to harm it. When someone engages in risky activities such as breeding wild creatures, using explosives, or creating defective products, they will  be held legally liable if others are injured. In most cases, the plaintiff must show that the accused is accountable, either via carelessness or error. In Strict Liability, however, the plaintiff just needs to demonstrate that the act occurred and that the defendant was at fault. Strict Liability is a type of Tort in which a person or entity is held liable for their actions even if the repercussions were unintentional. In addition, the law only holds people accountable for conduct that it deems to be inherently hazardous. 

Case law: Rylands V Fletcher

Rylands, the defendant, had a reservoir built on his land by independent contractors to supply water to his mill. There were also some old abandoned shafts beneath the reservoir site that the builders failed to notice. As a result, they did not obstruct the shafts. When the reservoir was filled with water, it erupts through the shafts. As a result, the plaintiff's coal mines on adjacent territory were flooded. The defendant was unaware of the shafts and thus not negligent, although the contractors were. 

Concerns expressed:

1)Whether or not there was any damage?

2)Was the Defendant's use of his land unreasonable, and hence was he liable for the Plaintiff's damages?

Rylands was found accountable for the harm caused to the Fletcher .The court determined that the respondents duty of care was owed to the danger because they were aware that if that amount of water escaped, it would be damaging. The defendants showed a lack of concern by keeping such a large amount of water on their property in an unnatural manner. Though it was not hazardous at the time, it would be dangerous if it escaped.

The Court concluded that in order for the concept of strict liability to apply, the land from which the escape occurred must have been transformed in a way that would be judged non-natural, peculiar, or inappropriate[ii]. Thus, "non-natural usage land" was deemed a requirement for the application of the strict liability rule.

Essentials of strict liability:

1) A dangerous thing must be brought onto the land - According to the strict liability rule, one is responsible for items that escape from their property if they were collected and were harmful, or likely to do injury if they did.

The thing so collected in the Ryland v. Fletcher case was a sizable body of water. 

2) Escape- The harm-causing object must also leave the area under the defendant's control and supervision in order for the Ryland v. Fletcher rule to be applicable.

Therefore, if a dangerous tree projects its branches into the neighbor's property, this constitutes an escape, and if cattle that are legally on the neighbor's property are killed by consuming the tree's leaves, the defendant would be held accountable under the regulation. However, the respondent cannot be held accountable if the plaintiff's horse crosses the line and perishes after consuming poisonous tree leaves because there was no release of the plant in this instance.

3) Non-natural use of land- The water gathered in the reservoirs in such large amounts was deemed an unnatural use of land in the case of Ryland v. Fletcher. "Natural usage" refers to retaining water for routine uses. For non-natural use, it has to be some unique usage that increases hazard to others and cannot just be an appropriate use of land for the community's overall benefit.

Absolute liability:

Simply put, the principle of absolute liability is the strict liability rule minus the exception. In the case of MC Mehta v. Union of India , the doctrine of absolute liability was established in India.

The case's facts state that some oleum gas from Shriram foods and fertilizers in Delhi. Numerous persons were impacted as a result of the breach. The Apex Court then developed the concept of absolute liability based on the concept of strict liability and declared that the accused would indeed be accountable for the harm caused regardless of whether the strict liability rule's exceptions were taken into account.

The Bhopal gas tragedy remains the greatest industrial accident in history. It happened in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, in December 1984. Methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas leaked from the Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL) pesticide manufacturing facility, causing the disaster. The MIC gas, which is regarded as the most dangerous chemical used in industry, leaked on the evening of December 2–3, 1984. People in Bhopal were subjected to this gas all around the city, and the immediate side effects of inhaling it were coughing, vomiting, intense eye irritation, and a sense of suffocation. Thousands of people perished right away, while tens of thousands more suffered severe, lifelong damage.

The Court made it clear that there were no exceptions to the new idea of absolute liability. There were two justifications for the same, and they were as follows: 

1)Enterprises engaged in risky and intrinsically harmful activities have a social responsibility to make amends for those who suffer as a result of those industries.

2)The business alone has the ability and means to create and set up defences against such risks and hazards

Vicarious Liability: What Is It?

When one party is found partially liable for another's illegal behavior, this is known as vicarious responsibility. The third party is likewise responsible for their own portion of the debt. Vicarious liability can occur when one party is intended to be in charge of (and be accountable to) a third party but is careless in carrying out their duties and using their control.

Case law:

Lokumal , also known as Defendant No. 1, was hired as a temporary driver for the State of Rajasthan by the Collector of Udaipur to operate a government jeep automobile. The vehicle was sent for maintenance. One Jagdishlal was walking on the sidewalk by the side of the road. On February 11, 1952 when defendant no. 1 struck him while driving the vehicle home from the store after the repairs were finished. Jagdishlal suffered serious injuries, including fractures to his skull and backbone. He passed away in the hospital three days later.

Judgment :

According to the Supreme Court, it is obvious from the conclusions of the court below that Defendant No. 2 committed the tortious act under circumstances that were entirely unrelated to the exercise of its sovereign powers. By establishing the proper legal stance that the Government was in no better situation than every employer in so far as providing automobiles and maintaining chauffeurs for its civil services, the Court maintained the verdict of the High Court declaring Defendant No. 2 accountable.

Essentials

The following prerequisites must be met for vicarious liability the master to materialize: –

1. The employee committed an act that qualifies as a tort.

2. The servant commits this tortious act while performing his duties for the master.

In tort law, it is presumed that any wrongdoing by the servant has been indirectly committed by his master, and as a result, the master is liable for any acts that the servant commits that are regarded to have been committed by the master via him.

CONCLUSION:

As was mentioned above, unlike strict liability, absolute liability does not have any defences which can be used as loopholes to escape liability. In the past, the unanticipated character of the event and the lack of intention may have aided in defending a person accused of it. Such exclusions became unnecessary as this concept developed along with industry and society, and it eventually developed into what it is today.

The purpose of the vicarious liability principle is to allow the party responsible for the harm to compensate the victim. Companies are held criminally responsible for the offences that their workers commit while performing their jobs. Additionally, a few important firm workers are made criminally accountable for the company's offences.