No Fault Liability Flashcards
What is strict liability
There are situations when a person may be liable for some harm even though he is not negligent in causing the same or there is no intention to cause the harm.In other words Sometimes the law recognizes no fault liability
J Blackburn * 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 at his own risk or peril, and if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage Which is the natural consequence of its escape He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was the consequence. This vis majure or act of God, but there’s nothing of that sort exists here. It is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient.*
GITTAN RAM VS. STATE OF J&K
- (1.)Settled in village Kachhrial of Tehsil Akhnoor located near the Actual Line of Control in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the petitioners had to leave their home and hearth in the year 1999 because of disturbances on the Border. They were settled temporarily by the State Government at Ram Nagar Migrant Camp Bomal situated in Tehsil Akhnoor.
(2.)Ganesh Dass aged 20 years, their son, was sleeping in a tent on February 22, 2001 when the Transformer installed by the Power Development Department of the State Government near the tent caught fire and 11 KV Electric Line carrying high voltage electric energy dropped at the tent hitting severely, sleeping Ganesh, who sustained severe burn injuries to which he succumbed at Sub District Hospital, Akhnoor.
(3.) Attributing Ganeshs death to the State Governments negligence in not employing safety devices and taking measures, requisite for ensuring that high voltage energy did not escape and caused damage and loss that it had the potential so to do, the petitioners have filed this Petition seeking compensation for the death of Ganesh, the sole bread winner of the petitioners family.
Requirements for strict liability
- The defendant brought something onto his land
In law, there is a difference between things that grow or occur naturally on the land, and those that are accumulated there artificially by the defendant. For example, rocks and thistles naturally occur on land. However, the defendants in Rylands v Fletcher brought water onto the land.
- Non-natural use of the land
- Something likely to do mischief
The thing brought onto the land must be something likely to do mischief if it escapes. In such a situation the defendant keeps it in at his peril.
- Escape and cause damage
There must be an escape of the dangerous substance from the defendant’s land.
Read v Lyons[1947] AC 156House of Lords
The claimant was employed by the defendant in their factory which made explosives for the Ministry of Supply. During the course of her employment an explosion occurred which killed a man and injured others including the claimant. There was no evidence that negligence had caused the explosion. At trial the judge held that the case was governed by the rule inRylands v Fletcherand liability was therefore strict. The Court of Appeal reversed this decision as the rule inRylands v Fletcherrequired an escape of the hazardous matter. The claimant appealed. The House of Lords dismissed the appeal. In the absence of any proof of negligence on behalf of the defendant or an escape of dangerous thing, there was no cause of action on which the claimant could succeed
Exceptions to strict liability
The Following exceptions to the rule have been recognized by rylands v fletcher 1868
1. Consent of the plaintiff volenti non fit injuria v scienti non fit injuira
The express or implied consent of the claimant to the presence of source of the danger, provided there has been no negligence by the defendant, will be a defence.
- Act of a stranger/Act of stranger
The defendant will not be liable if a stranger was responsible for the escape.
Rickards v Lothian [1913] AC 263. The D was not liable when an unknown person blocked a basin on his property and caused a flood, which damaged a flat below.
Box v JubbLR 4 EX Div 76
The defendant had a reservoir on their land. There was another reservoir situated at a higher level than the defendant’s. The owner of this other reservoir emptied it through a drain connected to the defendant’s reservoir causing the defendant’s reservoir to overflow and damage the claimant’s land. The claimant brought an action underRylands v Fletchercontending that there was a non natural user of the land and that there had been an escape of water that caused damage.
Held:
The defendant was not liable for the damage as it was caused by the act of a third party over which the defendant had no control
- Statutory authority
A statute may require a person or body to carry out a particular activity. Liability under Rylands v Fletcher may be excluded upon the interpretation of the statute.
geddis v propritors of bann reservoir 1878 - Act of God vis major
An act of God is an event which ‘no human foresight can provide against, and of which human prudence is not bound to recognise the possibility’
Requirements of this defence
a) There must be the working of natural forces without any human intervention
b) The Occurrence must be extraordinary and not the one which could be anticipated and reasonably guarded
Nichols v Marsland (1876) 2 ExD 1. Exceptionally heavy rain caused artificial lakes, bridges and waterways to be flooded and damage adjoining land. The D was not liable.
However, Nichols v Marsland was doubted by the House of Lords in:
Greenock Corporation v Caledonian Railway [1917] AC 556. The corp. constructed a concrete paddling pool for children in the bed of a stream and obstructed the natural flow of the stream. Owing to a rainfall of extraordinary violence the stream overflowed at the pond and damaged the property of the plaintiffs. Held that the extraordinary rainfall did not absolve the corp. from responsibility and that they were liable in damages.
- Default of the claimant/plaintiff
If the escape is the fault of the claimant there will be no liability. Alternatively, there may be contributory negligence on the part of the claimant.
Ponting v Noakes (1849) 2 QB 281
The claimant’s horse died after it had reached over the defendant’s fence and ate some leaves from a Yew tree. The defendant was not liable under Rylands v Fletcher as the Yew tree was entirely in the confines of the defendant’s land and there had therefore been no escape.
Charles, J:
“I do not see that they can be made responsible for the eating of these Yew leaves by an animal which, in order to reach them, had come upon his land. The hurt which the animal received was due to his wrongful intrusion. He had no right to be there and the owner therefore has no right to complain.”
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board vs Shail Kumar
FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts of the case go like this: Jogendra Singh, a workman aged 37 on a rainy night was going back home from the factory riding his bicycle. The road was entirely covered by water due to the heavy rain. Nothing was visible on the road. A snapped live electric wire was lying on the road, which was used by Hari Gaikwad(3rd Respondent) who, without the electrical board’s knowledge, was secretly stealing energy for his own home. The deceased could not notice the wire and he came in contact with the same. He died instantaneously due to electrocution. An action was brought against the M.P.Electricity board. His widowed wife and young boy sought compensation in the amount of Rs. 6.39 lakhs, but the trial court only awarded them Rs. 4.34 lakhs.
Supreme Court held that the Electricity Board had a statutory duty to supply electricity in the area. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped in it, the electricity supplier will be liable for the same. The defense of dangerous being ‘act of stranger’ can be an exception to strict liability was not allowed because the same could have been foreseen. The potentially dangerous nature of the electricity transmitted through the wires imposes a duty on the board and management to take all necessary safety measures to prevent any harm caused by the escape of such electricity. The wife and young son of the deceased sought Rs. 6.39 lakhs in compensation, but the trial court only awarded them Rs. 4.34 lakhs.
The final decisions which were passed by the council were:
1) The electricity board is liable because of negligence.
2) Even though it is an ‘act of a stranger’ the electricity board is liable to pay compensation because it is their duty to check.
3) The compensation amount does not match the losses incurred because a life is lost due to negligence
In the case ofMadhya Pradesh Electricity Board v Shail Kumar(AIR 2002 SC 551), the Supreme Court of India held that the respondent (Shail Kumar) was not liable for payment of the electricity bills for the period during which he was not occupying his premises.
The court’s reasoning was based on the fact that the respondent had given notice to the petitioner (Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board) of his vacation from the premises and that it was the responsibility of the petitioner to disconnect the electricity connection at that time. The court further held that the petitioner had not discharged its duty to disconnect the connection, and therefore could not hold the respondent liable for the consumption of electricity by any other person. The court also noted that the respondent had complied with the terms and conditions of the electricity supply agreement, which required him to give notice of his vacation from the premises and to pay any outstanding bills. The court held that the outstanding bills were not the responsibility of the respondent as he had not used the electricity during the period in question.
Rylands v Fletcher 1868
In Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330, the defendants employed independent contractors to construct a reservoir on their land. The contractors found disused mines when digging but failed to seal them properly. They filled the reservoir with water. As a result, water flooded through the mineshafts into the plaintiff’s mines on the adjoining property. The plaintiff secured a verdict at Liverpool Assizes. The Court of Exchequer Chamber held the defendant liable and the House of Lords affirmed their decision
Difference between strict liability and absolute liability
BASIS FOR COMPARISON STRICT LIABILITY/ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
Meaning Strict Liability implies the legal responsibility of a person for compensating the injured or aggrieved, even when he or she was not at fault or negligent./Absolute Liability arises from inherently hazardous activities like keeping dangerous animals or using explosives.
Talks about Person/Enterprise
Escape Necessary/Not Necessary
Exceptions Yes/No
Payment of compensation Nature and quantum of damages/Exemplary in nature
What is absolute liability
If an industry or enterprise is engaged in some inherently dangerous activity from which it is deriving commercial gain and that activity is capable of causing catastrophic damage then the industry officials are liable to pay compensation to the aggrieved parties
Supreme Court created the doctrine of absolute liability, in M.c Mehta v uoi in preference to the doctrine of strict liability. This decision was made by the court after two major gas leaks:
Escape of Methyl Isocyanate from Union Carbide Plant – Bhopal Gas Tragedy
Leakage of Oleum Gas from one of the units of Sriram Food and Fertilizers Industries
M.C MEHTA V UNION OF INDIA 1987 S.C
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court was dealing with claims arising from the leakage of oleum gas on 4th and 6th December, 1985 from one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries, in the city of Delhi, belonging to Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. As a consequence of this leakage, it was alleged that one advocate practising in the Tis Hazari Court had died and several others were affected by the same. The action was brought through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by way of public interest litigation. The Court had in mind that within a period of one year, this was a second case of large scale leakage of deadly gas in India, as a year earlier due to the leakage of MIC gas from the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, more than 3,000 persons had died and lacs of others were subjected to serious diseases of various kinds. If the rule of Strict Liability laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher was applied to such like situations, then those who had established ‘hazardous and inheren inherently dangerous’ industries in and around thickly populated areas could escape the liability for the havoc caused thereby by pleading some exception to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. For instance, when the escape of the substance causing damage was due to the act of a stranger, say due to sabotage, there was no liability under that rule.
The Supreme Court took a bold decision holding that it was not bound to follow the 19th century rule of English Law, and it could evolve a rule suitable to the social and economic conditions prevailing in India at the present day. It evolved the rule of ‘Absolute Liability’ as part of Indian Law in preference to the rule of Strict Liability laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher. It expressly declared that the new rule was not subject to any of the exceptions under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.
After laying down the above mentioned rule, the Court directed that the organizations who had filed the pethion may file apiaran appropriat Court within a period of 2 months to claim compensation on behalf of the victims of the gas leak
