Strict Liability, Absolute Liability and Vicarious Liability

Strict Liability
It is a kind of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing
from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant. It is
basically a legal doctrine that holds a party (defendant) responsible for its actions, without the
plaintiff having to prove the negligence or fault on the part of defendant. When any person
involves in ultra hazardous activities such as keeping wild animals, using explosives or making
defective products, then he/she may be held liable if any other person is injured because of that
activity, even if the defendant took necessary precautions and followed safety requirement.

In Rylands v. Fletcher case, the defendant got a reservoir constructed through independent
contractor. There were old unused shafts under the site of the reservoir, which the contractors
failed to observe and so did not block them. When the water was filled in the reservoir, it burst
through the shafts and flooded the plaintiff's coal mines on adjoining land.
The defendant did not know about the shaft and had not been negligent, but he was held liable.
This is also called the �No fault' liability. In the given case, the liability recognised was 'strict
liability' i.e. even if the defendant was not negligent or did not cause any intentional harm, he
could still be liable under the rule.

Essentials of Strict Liability

For the application of the rule, the following three essentials should be there:
1. Dangerous Things

According to this rule, the liability for the escape of thing from one's land arises only
when the thing collected was a dangerous thing. In Rylands v. Fletcher, the thing was
large water body (reservoir). The rule is also applied to gas, electricity, vibration, sewage,
explosive, etc.

2. Escape
For the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher to apply, it is also essential that the thing causing the
damage must escape to the area outside the occupation and control of the defendant. The
case of Read v. Lyons and Co, is an example of no escape and hence no liability. In this
case, the plaintiff was an employee in the defendant's ammunition factory, while she was
performing her duties inside the defendant's remises, a shell, which was being
manufactured there, exploded and she was injured. There was no evidence of negligence
on the part of defendant. It was held that the defendant was not liable because there was
no escape of thing outside the defendant's premises. So, the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher
did not apply to this case.
 3. Non-natural Use of Land

There should be non-natural usage of land to make the defendant liable. Like in Rylands
v. Fletcher case, collecting large body of water is considered to be non-natural use of
land.

In Sochacki v. Sas, it has been held that having a fire place is natural use of land. Even if
there is escape of fire from the fire place and the plaintiff suffers harm, the defendants
were not held liable as there was no non-natural use of land.

Absolute Liability
The rule of absolute liability, in simple words, can be defined as the rule of strict liability minus
the exception. In India, the rule of absolute liability evolved in the case of MC Mehta v. Union of
India.

The facts of the case are that some oleum gas leaked in a particular area in Delhi from industry.
Due to the leakage, many people were affected. The Apex Court then evolved the rule of
absolute liability on the rule of strict liability and stated that the defendant would be liable for the
damage caused without considering the exceptions to the strict liability rule.

Bhopal Gas Tragedy

This rule was upheld in the infamous Bhopal Gas Tragedy which took place between the night of
2nd and 3rd December, 1984. Leakage of 'Methyl Isocyanate' poisonous gas from the Union
Carbide Company in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh led to a major disaster. Over three thousand
people lost their lives. There was heavy loss to property, flora and fauna. A case was filed in the
American New York District Court as the Union Carbide Company in Bhopal was a branch of
the US based Union Carbide Company. The case was dismissed owing to no jurisdiction. The
Government of India enacted the Bhopal Gas Disaster Act, 1985 and sued the company for
damages on behalf of the victims. The court applying the principle of Absolute Liability held
the company liable and ordered it to pay compensation to victims.

Vicarious Liability
The rule of vicarious liability imposes liability on one person for the act done by another person.
Normally, a person who has done the wrongful act should alone be made liable for the injurious
consequences arising out of it, but the principle of vicarious liability is an exception to it. In
order to held a person liable for the act done by another person, it is necessary that there should
be a certain kind of relationship between the two persons and the wrongful act done should be, in
a certain way, connected with that relationship. The common examples of such relations include
principal-agent relationship, master-servant relationship and partners.
 1. Principal-Agent Relationship

Where an act is authorized by the principal and done by the agent, both of them are
liable. The authority to do the act may be express or implied. When an agent does a
wrongful act in the ordinary course of the performance of his duties as an agent, the
principal shall be held liable for such an act. However, there is no doubt, that the agent is
also liable for his act. Thus, their liability is joint and several.

In Lloyd v. Grace, Smith and Co. (1912), Mrs Lloyd, who owned two cottages but was not
satisfied with the returns, there from, approached the office of Grace, Smith and Co., a firm of
solicitors to consult them about the matter of her property. The managing clerk of the company
attended her and advised her to sell the two cottages and invest the money in a better way. She
was asked to sign two documents which were supposed to be sale deeds. In fact, the documents
that got signed were gift deeds in the name of the managing clerk himself. He then disposed of
the property and misappropriated the proceeds.

He had acted solely for his personal benefit and without the knowledge of his principal. It was
held that since the agent was acting in the course of his employment, apparently and ostensibly,
the principal was held liable for the fraud. In State Bank of India v. Shyama Devi, the woman's
(plaintiff) husband gave some amount and cheques to his friend, who was an employee in the
defendant bank, to deposit into the plaintiff's account. No receipt was obtained and the bank
employee misappropriated the amount. It was held by the Supreme Court that the employee,
when he committed the fraud was not acting in the scope of bank's employment but in his private
capacity as the depositor's friend, therefore the defendant bank could not be held liable for the
same.

2. Partners

The relationship between partners is that of principal and agent. Therefore, the rules of
the law of agency apply in case of their liability also. For the tort committed by any
partner in the ordinary course of the business of the firm, the other entire partners are
liable to the same extent, as the guilty partner. The liability of each partner is joint and
several.
In Hamlyn v. Houston and Company, one of the two partners of the defendant's firm,
acting within the general scope of his authority as a partner, bribed the plaintiff's clerk
and induced him to make a breach of contract with his employer (plaintiff) by divulging
secrets relating to his employer's business. It was held that both the partners of the firm
were liable for this wrongful act (including breach of contract) committed by only one of
them.
3. Master and Servant Relationship

If a servant does a wrongful act in the course of his employment, the master is liable for
it. Though, the servant is also liable. The wrongful act of the servant is deemed to be the
act of the master as well. The doctrine of liability of the master for act of his servant is
passed on the maxim respondeat superior, which means 'let the principal be liable' and it
puts the master in the same position as if he had done the act himself.

It also derives validity from the maxim qui facit per alium facit per se, which means 'he
who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself.'

There are two essentials which should be satisfied by a plaintiff before he can succeed
against the defendant, fixing vicarious liability on him for any wrongful act done by the
latter's servant, which are as follows:

a. He must establish that the relation of master and servant subsisted between the
defendant and actual wrong doer.
b. He must also prove that the wrongful act was done by the servant whilst he was
engaged in the course of employment of the defendant.