MC. Mehta vs. Union of India, A.I.R. 1987 S.C.

1086:-
The S.C. of India was dealing with claims of leakage of oleum gas on the 4th and 6th
December,1985 from one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries, Delhi. Due
to this leakage, one advocate and several others had died. An action was brought against the
industry through a writ petition under  Article 32 of the Indian Constitution by way of a
Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The judges in this case refused to follow the Strict Liability
Principle set by the English Laws and came up with the Doctrine of Absolute Liability. The
court then directed the organizations who had filed the petitions to file suits against the
industry in appropriate courts within a span of 2 months to demand compensation on behalf
of the aggrieved victims.

Non-natural use of land:  Water collected on land for domestic purposes does not amount to
non-natural use of land but storing it in huge quantity like that in a reservoir amounts to
non-natural use of the land (Rylands vs. Fletcher). This distinction between natural and non-
natural use of land can be made possible by its adjustment to existing social conditions.
Growing of trees is held natural use of land but if the defendant is found to grow trees of
poisonous nature on his land, then it is non-natural use of the land. If the land has been used
naturally yet a conflict has risen between the defendant and the plaintiff, owing to natural
use of land, the court will not hold the defendant liable.

Ø Mischief:  To make the defendant liable under the doctrine of strict liability, the plaintiff
needs to prove that the defendant made non-natural use of his land and escape of the
dangerous thing caused mischief/damage to him. The resultant damage needs to be shown by
the plaintiff after successfully proving that unnatural use of the land was done by the
defendant.

Case:- In  Charing Cross Electric Supply Co. vs. Hydraulic Power Co. (1914) 3 KB 772, the
defendants’ duty was to supply water for industrial works but they were unable to keep their
mains charged with the minimum required pressure which led to the bursting of the pipe line
at four different places resulting in heavy damage to the plaintiff which was proved with
evidence. The defendants’ were held liable in spite of no fault of theirs.

Brief Summary: Essentials for a tort to be held under the Doctrine of Strict Liability
a) Non-natural use of land must have taken place.
b) Escape of a dangerous thing from that land on which it was kept must have taken place.
c) The dangerous thing must have caused mischief.

A few instances where this rule is applicable:-

a) Activities involving non-natural use of land.
b) Activities involving dangerous operations such as blasting, mining, etc.
c) Liability arising out of keeping or taming dangerous animals.
d) Liability for dangerous structures e.g. building, ship, rail, etc.
e) Liability for dangerous chattels such as crackers, explosives, petrol, etc.

Inception of this rule: The Strict Liability principle is also called as ‘No Fault Liability’. This
is contradictory to the general principle of negligence in torts where a person can be held
liable for commission of a tort only when the plaintiff can prove negligence on his part and
the defendant himself is unable to disprove it. In the cases that I will now mention, the onus
of being negligent can be ignored. In spite of all due care taken by the defendant, he will
invariably be held for the consequences of the damages caused to any person outside of the
boundary of the defendant’s land by any hazardous thing that he maintained on the same
stretch of land i.e. in spite of no intentional or unintentional fault of his, the defendant can be
held liable hence, explaining the term ‘No Fault Liability’.

ai Laxmi Salt Works vs. State of Gujarat, (1994) 4 SCC 1: In this case the defendants to
manufacture salt from sea-water constructed a dam on a large portion of the land. Due to
negligent construction of the dam, water overflowed from it and spread all around and
damaged the plaintiff’s factory due to water entering into it. A suit was filed in the court but
the court held that the rule of strict liability will not apply here even though it is a non-
natural use of the land as the damage arose not due to construction of the dam but due to
improper construction of the same. It held the defendant guilty of breaching its public duty by
exposing the residents of that area to risk. 
amaan shit 

intro 

There are many activities undertaken by individuals or organizations whose very mature is
dangerous and hazardous and that they will cause damage if they come in contact with the
property of others. The activity if causes any damage or tort can be dealt by the law in three
ways. First it may prohibit them altogether. Second that it may allow them due to their social
utility but in accordance with some statutory provisions which would lay down the safety
measures and sanctions for non-compliance. The last is the Doctrine of Strict Liability.
According to this Doctrine the undertakers of the activity have to pay damages irrespective of
whether any carelessness has been done on their part. The basis of this is that because of the
foreseeable risk due to the very nature of the activities. Negligence and Strict Liability differ
from each other as in Negligence the defendant can be pardoned if to avoid any foreseeable
harm he/she had taken all the necessary precautions any prudent man would’ve taken.
However in Strict Liability the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he had taken
reasonable precautions or not.

INGREDIENTS OF STRICT LIABILITY

The ingredients of Strict Liability as explained and given by Blackburn are:

·       Activities involving non-natural use of land

·       Escape of a dangerous thing from that land in which it was kept must take place.

·       The dangerous thing must have caused mischief

EXCEPTIONS OF DEFENCES FOR STRICT LIABILITY:

The exceptions or the defenses for Strict Liability are:

·       Act of God: which is defined as a direct, sudden, violent and irresistable act of nature
which under any circumstances could not have been foreseen and if foreseen could not have
been by any skill or human ability be resisted. Examples could be storm, earthquake, etc.

·       Wrongful act of third party: a landlord who uses his property in a proper and ordinary
manner is bound to exercise all reasonable care but he is not responsible for the damage or
injury not done by him, whether the act be done through inevitable accident or through a third
party.

·       Plaintiffs own fault

·       Artificial work maintained for the common benefit of both the plaintiff and the
defendant or with the consent of the plaintiff.

·       When it is the consequence of an act done under authority of a statute.

OTHER CASES IN STRICT LIABILITY

To explain Strict Liability some cases are taken. These cases provide with a better
understanding as to what is the ambit of Strict Liability and as to where all it can be applied.

1) Read v. J. Lyons and Co.: the facts of this case were that an explosion occurred in an
ammunition factory, due to which the plaintiff was injured. The plaintiff filed a case under
the Doctrine of Strict Liability. The case rested on the fact that the defendant were
manufacturing explosives which were dangerous thing and that the plaintiff suffered injury
due to the explosion. The Court however ruled in the favor of the defendants due to the
reason that the Doctrine of Strict Liability can only be applied if there was an escape of
dangerous substances.

2) Rickards v. Lothian: in this case the plaintiff ran a business from the second floor of the
building. The defendant who owned the building had given it out on lease to other business
tenants. An unknown person had blocked all the basins and left the tap running. As a result
there was flooding due to which the plaintiffs stocks were damaged. Here the Court held that
the defendants were not liable for the actions performed by a third party and thus the
defendants were not required to pay the damages.
 

IS STRICT LIABILTY EFFECTIVELY APPLIED IN INDIA?

Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991: This act was introduced with the aim of providing
immediate relief to people who are victims of accidents in which handling of hazardous
substances is involved. The main focus of the Act is to create a public liability insurance fund
which can be used to compensate the victims. The Act states that any person who is carrying
out inherently dangerous or hazardous activities should have insurances and policies in place
where he will be insured against liability to provide compensation to the victims in case any
accident takes place, and some injury occurs. This liability is based on the principle of “no
fault liability” or in other words, the rule of strict liability and absolute liability. Inherently
dangerous or hazardous substance covers under its scope any mixture, preparation or
substance which because of its properties can cause serious harm to human beings, animals,
plants, property or the environment. If any substance is inherently dangerous or hazardous
due to its handling also, then also the absolute liability of the defendant arises.

RYANDS VS FLECTHER

The facts of the case were that the defendant had wanted to improve the water supply to his
mill for which he constructed reservoir. So for this he hired some engineers which in this case
could be said that they were independent contractors. While constructing the reservoir the
engineers were not careful to shut the mine shafts which they had come across which led to
the plaintiffs coal mine. When the reservoir was filled, water flowed down these mine shafts
and damaged the coal mine of the plaintiff. Now in such a case since the defendant was in no
way negligent as he hired competent engineers for the work and since the engineers were
independent contractors the defendant here too could not be held vicariously liable. Thus the
Court of Exchequer dismissed the claim showing now cause of action. But the Court of
Exchequer Chamber allowed the appeal and Blackburn J of the court laid down the basis of
Strict Liability which was later approved by the House of Lords. The basis of liability was
laid down by Blackburn in these words: “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 be kept at his peril; and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all
the damage which is the natural cause for its escape.” Blackburn has explained this principle
where he says that an individual owes a duty of care if he has brought upon his land, or
property, something which is known to be mischievous and which escapes from that land or
property, thus eventually causing mischief or damage to other people’s property. The
defendant here should have “brought something on his property which was not naturally
there”