_edited.png)
By- Mitali Thakur
This artilce was written by her during the tenure of her internship at Legal Soch Foundation.
INTRODUCTION
ABOUT STRICT LIABILITY
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF STRICT LIABILITY
DANGEROUS THING
ESCAPE
NON-NATURAL USE OF LAND
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE
PLAINTIFF’S FAULT
ACT OF GOD
CONSENT TO THE PLAINTIFF
ACT OF THE THIRD PARTY
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION
There are many hazardous activities, which may constitute a constant danger to the person or property of others. For ordinary life in society, there is one principle that every person should follow and i.e.” sicutere tuo ut alienum non-laedas” i.e. so use your own property in such a manner as not to injure that of another person.
Till now, we have seen that in tort a person could be made liable when he was either negligent or committed an intentional tort. But here in this article, we will deal with strict liability. Where a person is made liable even if he is neither negligent nor intentionally commits a tort. When a person is liable for some harm even though he is not negligent or there is no intention to cause that harm. The law recognizes such ‘no-fault liability. In such a case liability arises even without any negligence or fault on the part of the defendant, it is known as the rule of strict liability.
ABOUT STRICT LIABILITY
Strict liability is a kind of liability somewhat strange in that a person becomes liable without there being any fault on his part. In strict liability, wrong arises from the breach of absolute duty.
Now, absolute duty is basically a duty that makes a man liable without any fault of his and without considering intention or negligence on his part. For example:- If a person, on his land brings some dangerous thing that is likely to do mischief if it escapes, he will be prima facie answerable for the damage caused by its escape even though he was not negligent.
Here the liability arises not because there was fault or negligence, but because he kept some dangerous thing on his land and the same has escaped from there and caused damage. The principle of strict liability evolved in the case of Ryland v. Fletcher(1868). The principle states that any person who keeps hazardous substances on his premises will be held responsible if such substances escape the premises and cause any damage. The rule laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher is generally known as the Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher or Rule of Strict Liability. Because of the multiple caveats to the rule's applicability, it's better to call it the Strict Liability Rule rather than the Absolute Liability Rule.
In Ryland v. Fletcher, The defendant had a reservoir built on his land by independent contractors to supply water to his mill. There were old disused shafts beneath the reservoir's site that the contractors failed to notice and hence did not block. When the reservoir was full, the water broke through the shafts and swamped the plaintiff's coal mines on adjacent property.
The defendant was unaware of the shafts and was not negligent, despite the fact that the independent contractors were. Regardless of the fact that the defendant was not negligent, he was held accountable.
As per the rule, if a person brings on his land and keeps any dangerous thing there, i.e., something that is likely to create mischief if it escapes, he is prima facie liable for the damage caused by its escape, even though he was not negligent in keeping it there. The liability arises not because of any fault or negligence on the part of the person, but because he kept something harmful on his property and it escaped and caused damage. The rule of Strict Liability is named after the fact that liability arises in such a circumstance even if there is no fault on the side of the defendant.
To the above rule laid down by Blackburn, J., in the Court of Exchequer Chamber, When the case came before the House of Lords, it made another significant condition. It was decided that the use of land should be ;non-natural in order to be liable under the rule, as was the case in Rylands v. Fletcher.
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF STRICT LIABILITY
The following three conditions must be satisfied in order for the rule to be applied:
(1) Some dangerous thing must have been brought by a person on his land.
(2)The thing that a person has brought or retained on his property must be able to escape.
(3) It has to be a non-natural land use.
1) DANGEROUS THING
The substance that escapes must be harmful in nature in order for Strict Liability to be applicable. The substance must be dangerous in order to cause damage to other
people's property if it escapes. The thing so collected in Rylands v. Fletcher was a big body of water. Electricity, gas, things that could pollute water supplies, explosives, fire and anything that could cause fire, and other similar items have all been found to be within the rules.
2) ESCAPE
The object causing the harm must also escape to a location outside the defendant's occupation and control in order for the Rylands v. Fletcher rule to apply. Thus, if the branches of a dangerous tree are projected onto the neighbor's land, this constitutes an escape, and if animals lawfully present on the neighbor's land are poisoned by eating the leaves of the same, the defendant will be held accountable under Rule. The defendant on the other hand, cannot be held accountable if the plaintiff's horse crosses the boundary and dies from chewing the leaves of a poisonous tree there because there is no escape of vegetation in this scenario.
3) NON-NATURAL USE OF LAND
In Rylands v. Fletcher, water collected in such a large quantity in the reservoir was considered a non-natural use of land. Keeping water for normal household purposes is referred to as natural use. For the use to be non-natural, It "must be some special use bringing with it increased harm to others, and not simply by the regular use of land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community.
In Noble v. Harrison, it has been held non-poisonous trees on one's property are not a non-natural use of land. A non-poisonous tree branch growing on the defendant's land that overhung the highway unexpectedly broke and fell on the plaintiff's vehicle traveling along the highway. A latent flaw had caused the branch to break off. The defendant could not be found accountable under the Rylands v. Fletcher rule because tree planting is not a non-natural use of the property. Growing a toxic tree, on the other hand, is a non-natural use of land, and if an animal on the defendant's land eats the tree's leaves and dies, the defendant will be held liable under the rule.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE
Following are the exceptions to the rule:-
● Plaintiff’s fault
● Act of god
● Consent to the plaintiff
● Act of the third party
● Statutory authority
1) PLAINTIFF’S FAULT
The defendant would not be held liable if the plaintiff is at fault and any damage is caused because the plaintiff came into contact with the dangerous thing. In the case of Ponting v Noakes, (1849) 2 QB 281, the plaintiff's horse died after entering the defendant's land and eating some toxic leaves. The defendant could not be held strictly accountable for the loss because it constituted a wrongful intrusion, according to the Court.
2) ACT OF GOD
An event that is beyond the control of any human agency is referred to as an act of God. Such activities occur solely as a result of natural causes and cannot be stopped, even with extreme prudence and foresight. If the harmful substance escapes due to an unforeseeable and natural incident that could not have been controlled in any way, the defendant would not be liable for the loss. One instance where the defense was effectively pleaded is the case of Nichols v. Marsland. In that case, the defendant dammed a natural stream to build artificial lakes on his property. The plaintiff's four bridges were destroyed by the highest rainfall ever recorded in that year, which caused the stream and lakes to rise to such an extent that the embankments built for the artificial lakes, which were adequate for an ordinary downpour, collapsed. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to seek compensation for the same in damages. The accused were determined to have acted without fault. Due to the fact that the disaster, in this case, was brought about by an act of God, it was decided that the defendants were not culpable under the ruling in Rylands v. Fletcher.
3) CONSENT TO THE PLAINTIFF
This exception follows the principle of volenti non fit injuria i.e., where the plaintiff has consented to the accumulation of the dangerous thing on the defendant’s land, the liability under the rule of Ryland v. Fletcher does not arise. When the source of danger is for the mutual advantage of both the plaintiff and the defendant, such consent is implied. For example, if A and B are neighbors and share the same water supply, which is located on A's land, and the water escapes and causes harm to B, B will not be able to sue because A is not responsible for the damage. The ground floor of a building was rented by the plaintiff in Carstairs v. Taylor from the defendant. The defendant lived on the second story of the structure. Without any fault on the part of the defendant, water from the top floor began to flow, damaging the plaintiff's property on the bottom floor. The defendant was found not liable since the water had been saved for both the plaintiff's and the defendant's advantage.
4) ACT OF THE THIRD PARTY
When the damage is caused by the actions of a third party, the rule does not apply. The term third-party refers to a person who is neither the defendant's servant nor has the defendant's contract or authority over their work. However, where the actions of a third party can be predicted, the defendant must take care. He will be held liable if this does not happen. Box v. Jubb, the overflow from the defendant's reservoir was caused by the blocking of a drain by strangers, the defendant was held not liable for that.
5) STATUTORY AUTHORITY
An act done under the authority of a statute is a defense to an action for tort. The defence is also available in the rule of Ryland v. Fletcher. statutory authority, however, cannot be pleaded as a defense when there is negligence. The defendant company in Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Co. had a legal obligation to maintain a steady supply of water. The company's main pipe ruptured without any of its employees' fault, which led to a deluge of water on the plaintiff's property. It was decided that because the business was fulfilling a legal obligation, it was not accountable.
CONCLUSION
A person is only held accountable when he or she is at fault. One exception to this rule is strict liability. The concept behind this law, however, is that a person can be held accountable even though they did not do anything wrong. The no-fault liability idea refers to this. According to this principle, even if the culpable party did not do the conduct, he is nevertheless liable for the harm it created. There are various circumstances in which the defendant wouldn't be held accountable in a strict liability case.
REFERENCES
1) Law of Torts- By DR. R.K. Bangia
2) https://lawtimesjournal.in/strict-liability/
3) https://blog.ipleaders.in/concept-strict-liability-absolute-liability/
Comments