LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


Coverage of this Article

Difference Between Strict Liability And Absolute Liability

-The defendant is liable under the strict liability concept if he introduces anything on his land that is a non-natural use of land and if that object flees the land and causes harm to the plaintiff.

Strict Liability case laws

-In Rylands V. Fletcher's [(1868) LR 3 HL 330], the defendant owned a mill that required the construction of a water reservoir.

Absolute Liability case laws

-In M.C Mehta V. Union of India(AIR 1987 SC 1086),a subsidiary company manufactured chlorine and caustic.

Conclusion

-In many cases, it is witnessed that a person is harmed due to the activities of another person who is acting within the limits of his rights.

Difference Between Strict Liability And Absolute Liability

BASIS

STRICT LIABILITY

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

Liability The defendant is liable under the strict liability concept if he introduces anything on his land that is a non-natural use of land and if that object flees the land and causes harm to the plaintiff. The defendant is held liable under absolute liability when he engages in hazardous and intrinsically risky conduct.
Essential Feature In the case of strict liability, the essential feature is the escape of a "dangerous thing/ substance." In the case of absolute liability, even without an escape, the enterprise at fault can be held liable.
Responsible Party In strict liability, a person is held to be liable. In the case of absolute liability, only an industry can be held liable.
Defenses To The Tort Strict liability provides certain exceptions to the person who is held liable. In absolute liability, no defenses are made available to the person held liable
Establishment Of The Tort This principle was laid down in the case of Rylands v. Fletchers. This principle was laid down in the case of M.C Mehta V. Union of India.

Strict Liability case laws

  • In Rylands V. Fletcher's [(1868) LR 3 HL 330], the defendant owned a mill that required the construction of a water reservoir. He outsourced the work to an independent contractor. While constructing the reservoir, the contractors found old coal shafts and passages loaded with loose soil and trash linked to a nearby mine owned by Thomas Fletcher. The contractors decided to ignore the problem and continued with their work. Due to their carelessness, Fletcher's mine was destroyed twice because of the shafts. After the discovery of the sunken coal shafts, Fletcher sued Ryland. This was the case that marked the existence of the strict liability rule.
  • In Vohra Sadikbhai Rajakbhai v. State of Gujarat [(2016) 12 SCC 1], the respondents built and maintained a dam. The dam unleashed 60,000 cusecs of water, flooding the appellants' property and destroying their crops. The SC ruled that the defendant must pay damages since it was his responsibility to work to ensure that other occupants were as safe from injury as they would have been if nature had not been tampered with by the respondents.

Absolute Liability case laws

  • In M.C Mehta V. Union of India(AIR 1987 SC 1086),a subsidiary company manufactured chlorine and caustic. A petroleum gas leak from one of the units resulted in the loss of many lives. This was a consequence of human and mechanical failures. The cause for this leakage was the bursting of the tank, which contained the oleum gas, due to the collapsing of the structure upon which it was built. The courts preceding's shed light on how the industry's highly hazardous and toxic substances must be dealt with, along with the importance of controlled and contained methods to reduce the hazards in industries to guard the workers and the general citizens. This landmark case laid out the rule of absolute liability.
  • In Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (AIR 1996 SC 1446), the Supreme Court placed an absolute liability on a firm engaged in hazardous and intrinsically harmful to life activities. The writ petition in this matter was intended against the Central and State Governments and the State Pollution Control Board for failing to discharge their statutory duties.

Conclusion

In many cases, it is witnessed that a person is harmed due to the activities of another person who is acting within the limits of his rights. In such cases, it becomes challenging to hold someone responsible, and that's why the rules of strict and absolute liability were established. The strict liability and absolute liability principles apply where the defendant was not negligent, yet an accident happened due to something he brought into his property. Under the principles, a person who makes an unnatural use of his property or engages in a dangerous and fundamentally destructive activity is held to a higher duty of care. However, the rule of absolute responsibility is more stringent and offers no defense to a person or company engaged in a hazardous and intrinsically dangerous activity.


"Loved reading this piece by Sharmishta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"






Tags :


Category Others, Other Articles by - Sharmishta 



Comments


update