_edited.png)
Article by - Jyoti Dahiya (This article was written by her during tenure of her Internship as Legal Soch Foundation)
Abstract
The rule of strict liability states that “a person can be held liable for a loss or damage that he does not want to cause if there is an absence of mens rea”. There is no need to show that the defendant's carelessness, fault, or mens rea under strict liability. Even if a person has met all of the necessary requirements, or if there is no negligence on his part, he is still liable. A person is liable under strict liability even if he has no intent to cause harm. There are some strict liability
requirements that must be met, as well as some exceptions that fall under the purview of strict liability.
Introduction
Strict Liability is a type of liability in which "a person is held legally liable for the results of their actions even when they did not commit a crime or have no criminal intent". It is essentially a legal principle that holds a party (the defendant) accountable for its acts without the
plaintiff having to establish the defendant's carelessness or guilt. Even though the defendant took the required steps and adhered to safety regulations, he or she may still be held accountable if another person is injured as a result of engaging in hyper hazardous activities like harboring wild animals, using explosives, or creating defective products. In the case of Ryland’s v. Fletcher [1] the court established the rule of strict liability. The facts of the case are like “in 1868, the principle of strict liability stated that a person is liable if he keeps any hazardous substance on his property and that substance escapes and causes damage to someone else. The facts of the case are as follows: F had a mill on his property to provide water to his mill, and he hired an independent contractor to make a reservoir on the same property. And, by chance, the water from the reservoir flooded his neighbour R's coal mine. Following that, R filed a claim against F for the damage caused by his reservoir.” “The court held that the defendant built the reservoir at his own risk, and in course of it, if any accident happens then the defendant will be liable for the accident and escape of the material.”[2] This decision specifies that under strict liability, a person is liable for the damage or loss caused by his or her act, and mens rea plays no role in this principle. “There is no requirement to prove fault, carelessness, or mens rea under strict liability.” Under this liability, the claimant may file a case even if no fault is found. The claimant only needs to show that the defendant owns a dangerous substance that has escaped from his property and caused damage to the plaintiff. The claimant is not required to prove whether the defendant was negligent or not in his act; however, the defendant may raise the defense of absence of fault in certain circumstances, which we will discuss in this article.
Conceptual framework
The definition of the strict liability according to Blackburn, J is that “the rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril; and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequences of its escape.”[3]
As previously discussed, there are some strict liability essentials that must be met in order to hold a person liable under this principle. Some of the essentials covered by this liability are as follows:
1. Dangerous substance-
In the case of Ryland v. Fletcher, the court decided that the owner or defendant will only be liable under this principle if he keeps a dangerous substance on his property and that substance escapes. Some of the dangerous substance which was decided in Fletcher’s case are “fire[4]; gas[5]; blasting and munitions[6]; electricity[7]; oil and petrol[8]; noxious fumes[9]; colliery spoil[10]; rusty wire from a decayed fence[11]; vibrations[12]; poisonous vegetation[13]; a flag pole[14]; a chair-o-plane in a fairground[15]; and even noxious persons[16].”
2. Escapes-
One of the most important requirements of this principle is that the dangerous substance must be managed to escape from the defendant’s control and should not be within the defendant’s reach after its escape. And if “there is no escape, the defendant cannot be held liable”[17].
3. Non-natural use-
Non-natural use of property is required to make a person liable for strict liability. The water accumulated in the reservoir for the mill, as in Ryland’s v. Fletcher, was a non-natural use of property. And it was natural use if water was collected for domestic purposes. When we talk about non-natural use, we mean something that puts others in danger.
Exemptions from the rule
The following are some exceptions to this rule: -
1. Claimant's default-
If the loss occurred solely as a result of the claimant's default or act, he cannot seek compensation. In the case of Pointing v Noakes[18], “the plaintiff’s house crossed the defendant's boundary, nibbled the leaves of a poisonous tree, and died as a result. The first essential of dangerous substance is present in this case, but the vegetation did not escape; rather, the claimant's horse eats them”, so the claimant cannot seek compensation in this case because it was his own fault, not the defendants'.
2. Act of God-
When the substance escaped due to an unnatural cause beyond human control or a natural cause without human involvement in “circumstances which no human foresight can provide and of which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility,” the Act of God defense applies. Blackburn J. recognized it in Ryland v. Fletcher and applied it in Nichol v. Marsland [19]. In the present case, the defendant constructed an artificial lake, and extraordinary rainfall, “greater and more violent than any within the memory of the witnesses,” cause the artificial berms to collapse, causing damage to the claimant. In this case, the Act of God provides an exemption.
3. Statutory Authority-
A statutory authority act is an exemption from strict liability or a defense under tort law. The defense is not available if the statutory authority is negligent in performing his duty, as discussed in Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Coo.[20], in which “the defendant's company has a statutory duty to maintain a continuous supply of water, but one of the company's pipes bursts and floods plaintiff's property”. In this case, the court determined that the company was not liable to pay damages because it was performing statutory duties.
4. Third-party act-
If the damage or default was caused by a third party who is not the defendant's servant or employee and over whom the defendant has no control. In this case, the defendant is not obligated to pay for the damages caused by the third party's actions. A similar incident occurred in Box v. Jubb[21]; in this case, “the defendant's overflow was caused by the blocking of the drain by a stranger, so the defendant is not liable for the same.”
5. Consent of the plaintiff-
If the claimant consented to the accumulation of hazardous substances on the defendant's property for the mutual benefit of both the defendant and the claimant, and that dangerous thing harms the plaintiff, he cannot see compensation because his consent is implied.
Conclusion
Strict liability states that a person is responsible for his actions even if there is no negligence or mens rea. Some of the essential elements are present to make a person liable under this principle, and if any of the essential elements is missing, there is no liability under strict
liability. Under the purview of this principle, not only essentials but also exemptions exist, and if any of the exemptions apply in and if incident, the person is not liable to pay damages to the claimant.
[1] “Ryland’s v. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3H.L. 330.
[2] [2] Rebecca Furtado “Concept of Strict Liability and Absolute Liability” available at
[3] “Excerpts from the House of Lords Decision in Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Countries Leather plc” available at http://www.pierrelegrand.com/cambridge_water_excerpts.pdf
[4] Supra note 1.
[5] Batchellor v Tunbridge Wells Gas Co (1901) 84 L.T. 765.
[6] Miles v Forest Rock Co (1918) 34 T.L.R. 500
[7] National Telephone Co v Baker [1893] 2 Ch. 186
[8] Smith v GW Ry (1926) 135 L.T. 112
[9] West v Bristol Tramways Co [1908] 2 K.B. 14
[10] Attorney General v Cory Bros Ltd [1921] 1 A.C. 521.
[11] Firth v Bowling Iron Co (1878) 3 C.P.D. 254
[12] Hoare & Co v McAlpine [1923] 1 Ch. 167
[13] Ponting v Noakes [1894] 2 Q.B. 281
[14] Shiffman v Order of St John [1936] 1 All E.R. 557
Comments